University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Cognitive distortion and political correctness: unraveling the implications of safetyism

(USC Thesis Other)

Cognitive distortion and political correctness: unraveling the implications of safetyism

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Cognitive Distortion and Political Correctness: Unraveling the Implications of Safetyism
Robert Joseph Regan
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
August 2024

© Copyright by Robert Joseph Regan 2024
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Robert Joseph Regan certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Dennis Hocevar
Terence Durkin
Patricia Tobey, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2024

iv
Abstract
This dissertation offered insights into the repercussions of safetyism within societies shaped by
cognitive distortions and political correctness. Safetyism, which prioritized emotional safety over
intellectual liberty and a multitude of viewpoints, contributed to heightened vulnerability among
individuals. Protecting individuals from provocative ideas weakened resilience and hindered
personal growth. Furthermore, safetyism frequently led to the suppression of contentious views
to evade discomfort, thus curtailing freedom of expression and hampering intellectual progress.
Societal environments dominated by safetyism were prone to favoring conformity at the expense
of critical thinking, thereby quashing innovation and the spirit of independent reasoning.
Grasping the impact of safetyism on individual fragility, censorship, and societal division was
crucial for fostering an environment conducive to progressive thinking and creativity. Diversity
in thought and open discourse could be possible by recognizing the limitations of an excessively
cautious culture and striving for a balanced approach that marries psychological well-being with
the fundamental principles of intellectual freedom. The research methodology was based on a
qualitative approach using grounded theory to explore the complex social phenomenon of
safetyism. This involved analyzing various qualitative sources such as books, articles, podcasts,
and electronic database analyses to generate anecdotal evidence. Grounded theory was used to
systematically organize emerging themes, combining deductive and inductive reasoning to
ensure the resultant theories were firmly rooted in the data. The hypothesized themes were
fragility, censorship, and social fragmentation.
Keywords: anecdotal, censorship, cognitive distortion, fragility, freedom of speech,
grounded theory, political correctness, resilience, safetyism, and social fragmentation.

v
Acknowledgments
I want to express my deepest thanks to my family and friends for their unwavering
support throughout my academic endeavors. Their encouragement and understanding have been
crucial in helping me pursue my studies and navigate life’s challenges. I am incredibly grateful
to my parents for their sacrifices and to my siblings and friends for being a source of comfort and
motivation.
The lively discussions surrounding safetyism have greatly enriched this dissertation.
Interactions with peers, mentors, and scholars have pushed me to think critically and refine my
ideas. These dialogues have played a key role in shaping my perspective on this intricate subject.
I truly appreciate the community formed through these conversations, providing a solid
foundation for learning and personal growth.
I also want to underscore the societal significance of free speech and open dialogue.
These fundamental values have not only allowed me but countless others to fearlessly explore
diverse viewpoints, fostering an environment that is conducive to learning, transformation, and
innovation. Your support in upholding these values has been instrumental in my academic
journey.
In conclusion, I extend heartfelt gratitude to everyone who has been part of this journey.
The wisdom I have acquired extends far beyond the realm of academics; it embodies the power
of unity, the richness of conversations, and the unwavering support from loved ones. I am deeply
grateful for your guidance in navigating this challenging yet rewarding journey. Your
contributions have been invaluable, not just in my academic pursuits but in my personal growth
and transformation.

vi
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................... v
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................... viii
List of Figures................................................................................................................................ ix
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study.......................................................................................... 1
Context and Background of the Problem.............................................................................2
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions...................................................................3
Importance of the Study.......................................................................................................4
Definitions............................................................................................................................4
Organization of the Dissertation ..........................................................................................5
Chapter Two: Literature Review .................................................................................................... 7
Cognitive Distortion.............................................................................................................7
Political Correctness ..........................................................................................................21
Fragility..............................................................................................................................40
Censorship..........................................................................................................................53
Social Fragmentation .........................................................................................................63
Overview of Theoretical and Conceptual Framework of Safetyism .................................74
Summary............................................................................................................................78
Chapter Three: Methodology........................................................................................................ 79
Overall Methodological Overview ....................................................................................80
Research Questions............................................................................................................82
Research Design.................................................................................................................83
Credibility and Trustworthiness.........................................................................................86
Limitations and Delimitations............................................................................................87

vii
Timeline of Research .........................................................................................................89
Research Setting, Theoretical Approach, and Rationale ...................................................90
The Researcher...................................................................................................................92
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria........................................................................................93
Validity and Significance of Studying Social Processes ...................................................94
Chapter Four: Findings................................................................................................................. 97
Part 1: Chronological Timespan ........................................................................................98
Part 2: Summary and Research Questions.......................................................................184
Conclusion .......................................................................................................................196
Chapter Five: Discussion and Implications ................................................................................ 199
Comparative Analysis of the Early and Contemporary Findings....................................199
Practical Illustrations of Safetyism Findings...................................................................200
Findings............................................................................................................................201
Recommendations for Future Research ...........................................................................211
References................................................................................................................................... 214
Appendix A: Coding Table......................................................................................................... 262
Appendix B: Not Human Subjects Research .............................................................................. 263
Appendix C: Protocols................................................................................................................ 264
Appendix D: Combined Tables of the Framework for Cataloging Research............................. 265

viii
List of Tables
Table 1: Safetyism Model, Timeframes: Defined 89
Table 2: Framework for Cataloging Research 99
Table 3: Partisan Opinions Over the Implications of Political Correctness in the United
States Between 2008 and 2015 111
Table 4: Reasons Why Americans Own Guns: 2013 Survey 115
Table 5: Positive and Negative Perspectives (Mixed Reactions) From Americans About
Stricter Gun Laws-2013 Survey 117
Table 6: Framework for Cataloging Research 126
Table 7: Structured Framework for Cataloging Research 158
Table 8: Study on Response to Harming Words Such As White Privilege and Inequality 167
Table 9: Removal by Facebook Group Type 37104 173
Appendix A: Coding Table 262
Appendix D: Combined Tables of the Framework for Cataloging Research 265

ix
List of Figures
Figure 1: Safetyism Qualitative Causal Model 77
Figure 2: Party Affiliation and Loyalty Between Democrats and Republicans Between
1994–2017 101
Figure 3: Top Five States for Hate Groups in 2015 102
Figure 4: The Growth of “Patriotic” Groups in the United States From 1997–2015 105
Figure 5: Hate Groups in 1999–2015 106
Figure 6: Partisan Variations Over Whether Too Many Americans Are “Easily Offended”
by Language 2008–2015 109
Figure 7: People Are Most Likely to Self-Censor Due to the Political Climate Created by
Political Correctness Between 2008 and 2015 113
Figure 8: Perspectives of Americans on Stricter Gun Laws, 2015–2018 118
Figure 9: Partisan Perspectives of Americans on Stricter Gun Laws, 2015–2019 120
Figure 10: Perspectives of Americans on Stricter Gun Laws, 1992–2019 121
Figure 11: Partisan and Demographic Perspectives of Americans on Stricter Gun Laws,
2018 122
Figure 12: Parenting Styles Among American Parents, 2015 124
Figure 13: Liberal and Conservative Item Analysis 129
Figure 14: Why Americans Identify As Either Republican or Democrat 131
Figure 15: Approval of Presidency Performance 134
Figure 16: Survey on U.S. Adults on Leaders’ Aggressive Speech 135
Figure 17: Survey Conducted on the Increase of the Use of Mobile Phones for News 137
Figure 18: A Survey on Americans on Causes of Stress and Psychological Health Concern 138
Figure 19: A Survey on the Increase of Number of Americans Reporting Variety of Factors
Causing Harassment in the United States 140
Figure 20: A Survey of Voting Patterns Based on Various Issues 142
Figure 21: The Trend in Deportation Rates by Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) 145

x
Figure 22: Views on Insulting Words 147
Figure 23: A Survey on What People Say About What-on–What Comments in the Political
Environment 149
Figure 24: Survey on Comfort of Americans to Express Their Views 151
Figure 25: A Survey on How People View Journalists 154
Figure 26: Views of the Students on Safe Spaces on the Campus 155
Figure 27: Survey on Number of Apprehensions 156
Figure 28: Emotional Pain in America: COVID-19 as a Major Stressor for Most American
Adults 159
Figure 29: Emotional Pain in America: The United States’ Future as a Major Source of
Emotional Pain for Most American Adults 161
Figure 30: Average Stress Level in American Adults 163
Figure 31: Gen Z Adults Stress on Uncertainty in the Future of Education 164
Figure 32: A Survey on Students Toward Censorship 169
Figure 33: A Survey on a Range of Topics Students Find Difficult to Discuss 171
Figure 34: A Survey on Identity of U.S. Citizens As Moderate, Liberals, and Conservatives 175
Figure 35: Survey on American’s View on Economic Inequality 180
Figure 36: FIRE Ratings on 376 Public and 113 Private Institutions on the Extent to Which
Their Written Policies on Learners (as a Way to Ensure the Safety of the Learners) Impact
Free Speech 182
Figure 37: Cognitive Distortion, Safetyism, and Political Correctness Thematic Map 185
Figure 38: Fragility’s Link to Cognitive Distortion, Safetyism, and Political Correctness, a
Thematic Map 187
Figure 39: Censorship’s Link to Cognitive Distortion, Safetyism, and Political Correctness,
a Thematic Map 190
Figure 40: Social Fragmentation’s Link to Cognitive Distortion, Safetyism, and Political
Correctness, a Thematic Map 194
Figure 41: Safetyism as a Conceptual Model and Thematic Map 198
Appendix B: Not Human Subjects Research 263

1
Chapter One: Introduction to the Study
In the classic dystopian novel by George Orwell, the aim of Newspeak was to narrow the
range of thought (Orwell, 1949/2021). This dissertation studied the influence of cognitive
distortion and political correctness on present-day language and culture and the implications of
the emergence of safetyism. Safetyism in modern society drives a culture of identity politics and
a desire to protect individuals from emotional harm. Common-enemy identity politics is based on
trying to unite and mobilize multiple groups to fight against a common enemy (Lukianoff &
Haidt, 2018). In recent years, the intersection of cognitive distortion, political correctness, and
the rise of safetyism has garnered significant attention and debate in various spheres of society.
Cognitive distortions are errors in reasoning resulting from negative intuitive thoughts that are
not evidence-based, leading to unhealthy, irrational, and maladaptive thoughts (Clements &
Schumacher, 2010).
The concept of political correctness emerged as a means to promote inclusivity and
respect for diverse identities and perspectives. Political correctness relies on euphemism and
orthodoxy to change established linguistic and behavioral norms. Political correctness traces to
the 1930s with Mao Tse-Tung and Chinese communism. At that time, political correctness meant
following the party line, eventually becoming an ironic expression of over-adherence to
particular ideologies (Limerick, 2011). The increasing prominence of safetyism and the
prioritization of emotional safety over intellectual diversity has introduced new complexities into
this landscape. Safetyism refers to a culture or belief system in which safety has become a sacred
value, which means that people become unwilling to make trade-offs demanded by other
practical and moral concerns. Safety trumps everything else, no matter how unlikely or trivial the
potential danger (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018).

2
This qualitative dissertation’s primary aim was to delve into the implications of the rise
of safetyism in relation to cognitive distortion and political correctness. By examining these
concepts through the conceptual framework of safetyism, I sought to explore the connections
between these phenomena. I further investigated how safetyism affects constructs such as
fragility, censorship, and social fragmentation to better understand their challenges and explore
ways to generate a balance that fosters emotional well-being and intellectual growth in
contemporary society.
Context and Background of the Problem
Historically, the rise of safetyism can be traced back to the increased focus on child
safety, specifically physical safety (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018). Aspects of risk aversion gained
momentum in the latter half of the 20th century. Concerns about child safety led to the
implementation of various safety measures and regulations in schools and other public spaces.
According to Lukianoff and Haidt (2018), the culture of safety hinders social, emotional, and
intellectual development, making it challenging for children to grow into autonomous adults
capable of facing life’s challenges, including those in the workplace. Becoming autonomous
involves learning to make responsible decisions and act in ambiguous and uncertain situations
(Schroth, 2019). The emphasis on protecting children from potential harm gradually expanded to
encompass other areas of society, leading to concept creep. Concept creep is a side effect of
large-scale societal changes in which new forms of an existing phenomenon are added by
accretion (Haslam, 2016).
The rise of safetyism can also be linked to the broader cultural shift toward prioritizing
emotional well-being and minimizing potential sources of discomfort or distress, especially in
language. Weaponizing of the meaning of speech eventually evolved into a social phenomenon

3
that theorized there is no difference between speech and violence, which has struck many as
coddling or infantilizing of students as well as being a corrosive influence on the freedom of
expression necessary for intellectual progress (Barrett, 2017). Cognitive distortions and
negatively biased thought patterns (e.g., emotional reasoning) have recently gained the spotlight
as a conduit to safetyism (Celniker et al., 2022), further illustrating today’s social culture.
The primary constructs of cognitive distortion, safetyism, and political correctness aim to
protect individuals from emotional distress or discomfort but have sparked debates regarding
their potential impact on fragility, censorship, and social fragmentation. In Michael Easter’s
book (2021), The Comfort Crisis, a new body of evidence shows that people are at their best—
physically more demanding, mentally more challenging, and spiritually sounder—after
experiencing the same discomforts our early ancestors were exposed to every day. Scientists find
that certain discomforts protect us from physical and psychological problems like obesity, heart
disease, cancer, diabetes, depression, and anxiety, and even more fundamental issues like feeling
a lack of meaning and purpose (Aster, 2021).
Purpose of the Project and Research Questions
Today’s culture of safetyism has led to the advent of fragility and rewriting of the social
and social fragmentation landscape. Although safetyism’s roots were well-intentioned efforts to
protect individuals and promote emotional well-being, concerns about its potential consequences
arose. In this study, I sought to thoroughly understand the underpinnings of safetyism and its risk
to modern society and to identify best practices to encourage a tomorrow of creativity and free
speech. Four research questions aided in investigating this topic further:
1. How are cognitive distortion, safetyism, and political correctness linked?
2. How do cognitive distortion, safetyism, and political correctness link to fragility?

4
3. How do cognitive distortion, safetyism, and political correctness link to censorship?
4. How do cognitive distortion, safetyism, and political correctness link to social
fragmentation?
Importance of the Study
Psychological research has found that people’s performance improves when they know
they will be held accountable and are encouraged to set ambitious standards for the group, in this
case, using evidence and law instead of feelings (Leibold & Polavin, 2023). Over the past decade
or so, the incremental increase in identity politics has led to an apparent sociopolitical divide.
This research holds significant value by providing insight into modern society’s trends and, more
importantly, investigating the breakdown of social trust and the polarization of human culture.
Numerous political problems in today’s world result from perceived divisions between us and
them based on group loyalties bolstered by modern notions of identity. Only when we stop
having identities in the group-defined sense can we return to being individuals (Benson, 2020).
Recognizing the potential pitfalls of safetyism will enable individuals to balance fostering
psychological well-being while upholding the principles of intellectual freedom, diversity of
thought, and open dialogue.
Definitions
This dissertation defines key terms to clarify the concepts of cognitive distortion, political
correctness, and the implications of safetyism. These definitions provide context and enhance the
understanding of the research.
Cognitive distortions are errors in reasoning that stem from negative, intuitive thoughts
not based on evidence, leading to unhealthy, irrational, and maladaptive thoughts (Clements &
Schumacher, 2010).

5
Concept creep refers to the gradual broadening of concepts as a result of societal
changes, whereby new forms of an existing phenomenon are recognized (Haslam, 2016).
Fragility describes a state or quality where entities are intolerant to volatility,
randomness, uncertainty, disorder, errors, and stressors and are easily harmed, offended, or
broken (Taleb, 2014).
Iconoclasm involves the targeted destruction of monuments in public spaces,
conceptualized as a political act aimed at undermining symbols of political authority, ideology,
or doctrine (Frank & Ristic, 2020).
Ostracism is employed by civil society activists as informal social pressure to hold
powerful individuals accountable to societal standards by damaging reputations, derailing
careers, denying access to public platforms, and laying the groundwork for legal actions (Norris,
2021).
Political correctness entails avoiding language or behaviors that could exclude,
marginalize, or offend groups of people who are disadvantaged or discriminated against
(Limerick, 2011).
Safetyism describes a cultural tendency to prioritize emotional and psychological safety
over intellectual freedom and the exploration of diverse perspectives, elevating safety to a sacred
value and discouraging trade-offs demanded by other practical and moral concerns (Lukianoff &
Haidt, 2018).
Organization of the Dissertation
Chapter One contains the initial introduction to safetyism, the theoretical framework, and
the major constructs with which it interacted. Chapter Two deeply explored how safetyism
impacts fragility, censorship, and social fragmentation. At a higher level, the organizational

6
approach of the outline revolves around exploring the interconnected themes of fragility,
censorship, and social fragmentation. Each theme covers specific points that delve into the
underlying factors contributing to these societal dynamics. Chapter Three covers the
methodology employed in this study, outlining the research design, data collection methods, and
analytical approaches utilized to investigate the phenomena of safetyism, fragility, censorship,
and social fragmentation. Chapter Four presents the findings derived from the empirical analysis
conducted within the framework of this study. Chapter One provides an in-depth examination of
how safetyism influences fragility, censorship, and social fragmentation, drawing on the data
collected and analyzed. Chapter Five comprises the discussions and implications section, where
the findings from Chapter Four are critically analyzed and interpreted in the context of existing
literature and theoretical frameworks. Additionally, this chapter offers recommendations for
addressing the challenges posed by safetyism and promoting societal discourse and cohesion.
The outline’s organizational approach adopts a comprehensive perspective to understand
the complexities and interplay between safetyism, fragility, censorship, and social fragmentation.
By examining each theme through various lenses, the outline aimed to provide a holistic
understanding of the underlying factors influencing societal dynamics and discourse, fostering
critical thinking and a deeper appreciation of these complex issues.

7
Chapter Two: Literature Review
Chapter Two explores the association between the historical context and approaches to
cognitive distortion, political correctness, and the emergence of safetyism in Western society,
which researchers have never expounded on deeply. The intertwined associations between these
pertinent elements in the contemporary world have made it more complicated to assess,
understand, and simplify, necessitating an examination of each of these notions independently.
Therefore, this section critically examines the concept of cognitive distortion, political
correctness’s inception, safetyism culture’s emergence in society, and the implications derived
from this cultural shift.
Cognitive Distortion
As posited by Ellis et al. (2010) and Prochaska and Norcross (2018), personality
disorders are accompanied by rational and irrational beliefs consisting of correlated symptoms
perpetuated by dysfunctional schemas of cognitive distortions. A negative outlook on real-life
occurrences—often referred to as negative schemas—is the key driving factor in cognitive
distortion, which escalates the possibility of experiencing poorer and undesirable subjective wellbeing or feeling (Beck, 1963). Definitively, cognitive distortion is an individual’s internal mental
filters and biases that emphasize safety and protection at the expense of core values and
correlated personal responsibilities (Beck, 1963; Rnic et al., 2016). In reality, Schwarzer (1994)
suggested that cognitive distortion enhances one’s vulnerability to anxiety and depression,
instilling a sense and feeling of fear. In the history of American politics and its prevailing
dynamic social setting, the public has undergone a myriad of instances involving possible
cognitive distortions. With the emergence and continual adoption of safetyism in American
society, biased perceptions and relatively irrational interpretations of potential harms have grown

8
seamlessly (Celniker et al., 2022). Safetyism has become the order of the day as people often
prioritize emphasizing emotional safety at the expense of moral ethics and cultural values,
including intellectual diversity, freedom, and the right to expression.
Ideally, safety-driven actions and beliefs directly correlate with cognitive distortions in
any societal setting (Celniker et al., 2022). An intrinsic negative and biased matrix of thoughts,
such as emotional reasoning, exacerbates emotional discomfort among people in a particular
setting. Present-day psychology studies have suggested that cognitive distortion predicts and
dictates safetyism, where words are treated as potential causes of harm (Usen et al., 2016). When
people interact through speech and exchange of words, each person’s interpretation varies
because people have different emotional or psychological statuses at the moment of speech or
exchange of ideas (Green, 2015), resulting in speech that may be offensive depending on the
recipient’s status. According to Green (2015), if this happens, it creates an inevitable cognitive
distortion due to ideologically challenging experiences. Therefore, ideologically challenging
experiences may manifest through signs of psychological trauma or symptoms of
disproportionate emotional harm.
Most students of the younger generation, specifically, have been observed to be more
fragile, especially at school, and seek (emotional) protection from their schools and parents or
society (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2015). The argument in this context is that certain words, ideas, or
groups can be accurately interpreted and perceived as subjective instances of violence by the
majority of emotionally fragile recipients. These interpretations imply that cognitive distortions
may inadvertently alter an individual’s intellectual growth, emotional sustenance, and resiliency
(Rosenfield, 2004). The highlighted implications are that the outcome of cognitive distortion

9
escalates anxiety and makes the recipient groups highly avoidant of minor social and political
stressors.
As posited by Celniker et al. (2022), cognitive distortions arise from error-driven
reasoning emerging from cynical intuitive convictions and abstractions that are not evidencebased. A relatable example of error-driven reasoning is the culture and practice of
catastrophizing occurrences or words, where one excessively perceives a mild negative
occurrence as an extreme disaster (Branch & Todd, 2022). In such cases, an individual inevitably
feels emotionally unsafe and, in so doing, embraces safetyism. Another instance of cognitive
distortion in practice is where one forms all-or-nothing thinking, thus viewing events and
occurrences as either-or (Covin et al., 2011) instead of perceiving and interpreting them as
nuanced (Oshio, 2012). The last example of cognitive distortion is emotional reasoning-driven
distortion. In this case—as is often in real-world scenarios—individuals involved in any form of
conversation or the targeted recipients of particular speech or words, in particular, believe that
their feelings and opinions precisely represent reality (Gilbert, 1998; Talbot & Saleme, 2022).
Because such cognitive distortions obstruct healthy psychological functioning, clinical
psychologists have developed cognitive behavioral techniques/therapies (CBTs) to manage,
reduce, or contain distorted thinking and beliefs (Alford et al., 1997; Lukianoff & Haidt, 2015;
Talbot & Saleme, 2022). Cognitive behavioral therapy, introduced by Albert Ellis in 1962 and
Aaron Beck in 1976, focuses on the interplay between thoughts, feelings, and actions (Leder,
2016).
While people encounter different cognitive distortions, the quantification of cognitive
justification and safetyism in society reflects a far-reaching and more noticeable pattern and
system of perverted thinking, reasoning, and opinions (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2015). Lukianoff and

10
Haidt posited that cognitive distortion is connected and linked to a myriad of daily life activities
and legal cases. In the context of American society, the cumulative duration has witnessed an
escalation in the conceivable harm that an individual might contemplate in relation to the
potential impact of offensive speech. Modern society’s justification and perception of censorship
because of such offensive speech or content illustrate cognitively distorted thinking instead of
reflective analyses of the adverse predicaments, such as costs and benefits, associated with using
offensive content and speech (Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023). Therefore, contemporary studies
recommend actively participating in cognitive-behavioral exercises—a goal-specific talk
therapy—to contain and mitigate distorted societal perceptions and opinions (Lukianoff & Haidt,
2018). Social and psychological beliefs posit that engaging in pragmatically supported cognitivebehavioral programs can improve mental health and diminish the inclination to prioritize
emotional and psychological safety over rational facts or intellectual freedom.
However, as Celniker et al. (2022) suggested, people’s drive to control speech and
content consumption involves a rational objection to obsolete, traditional beliefs and outdated
conceptions of harm, with most emphasis specifically on emotional and psychological harm
(Rnic et al., 2016). Most researchers have overlooked the adverse predicaments of unintentional
and societal maltreatment, and coincidentally, contemporary societies empirically justify the
increased regulation of speech because people perceptively treat words as a more harmful tool in
the current world than previous researchers recognized or established (Shashkevich, 2019).
Consequently, modern society’s newfound emphasis on impact over intent in gauging and
treating speech or making judgments over speech shows a reflective transition in moral
psychology instead of a transformation toward more inherent cognitively contorted thinking
(Wang et al., 2023). Concerning the multifaceted nature of the cultural and social settings in

11
different societies and perceived intentions in the moral evaluation of behaviors, actions, and
practices, it is pragmatically complex to completely prevent cognitive distortion among people in
a society.
A cognitively distorted mindset predicts, mediates, and dictates safetyism-inspired
perceptions, beliefs, and practices in most societal settings, with American society being evident
(Celniker et al., 2022). In modern American culture, cognitive distortion manifests in myriad
forms. First, there is significant social and political polarization where people lean toward a
specific group thinking more than others (Lelkes, 2016). For example, the prominent polarization
of mindsets in society has made people believe in either White or Black thinking. Through
polarized thinking, Lelkes (2016) suggested that people tend to view and perceive certain things,
events, or activities as being more extreme than they actually are and without alternative
thoughts, as argued by Jost et al. (2022). In the current political debates, some speakers view
their opinions and thoughts as the only correct forms of argument, while others demonize or
demean divergent opinions from others (E. S. Anderson, 2022). Consequently, such situations
inevitably diminish comprehension and may result in significantly reduced empathy among
individuals, particularly recipients or listeners, thereby exacerbating polarization within both
individuals and society.
Furthermore, polarization has contributed to an undesirable culture characterized by
overgeneralization among individuals. Through overgeneralization, an individual or a group of
people tends to make broad, irrational, and swift conclusions about an event or particular
experience (Cuncic, 2022). In this context, people who overgeneralize would apply their
previous experiences to all other circumstances, which might have outcomes or occurrences
different from their inherent prejudices. Overgeneralization creates undesirable stereotypes and

12
prejudgments of specific relatable events, people, or groups (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Los
Angeles, 2022). However, the prevailing complexity in these scenarios is that people make
prejudices and stereotypes regardless of whether the events, experiences, or occurrences are
comparable. For example, in a school setting, it is predictable that students who have a negative
experience with their educators teaching particular subjects or had previous negative
experiences, such as scoring low grades, would overgeneralize such experiences and apply
extreme prejudice in the future (Kutsyuruba et al., 2015). In this case, as K. F. McGrath and Van
Bergen (2015) suggested, should any of the teachers appear in such students’ future classes, the
students would assume the worst and anticipate failing. Through overgeneralization, such
learners would develop negative self-talk with assumptions that they can only excel in such
courses if they view their one-time previous events (of scoring low grades) as consistent and
recurrent patterns in the future.
Similarly, in the social media context, according to Radovic et al. (2017), when people
post content, such as photographs and videos doing particular activities of interest, they are likely
to receive positive or negative comments. If the latter happens for the first time, such an
individual would cease posting their content on social media. Negative comments would
emotionally hurt them, and through overgeneralization, they would view the negative comments
as an unavoidable pattern of mistakes (Bhattacharjee et al., 2022). As a result, Radovic et al.
(2017) contended adolescents described their negative experiences with social media, noting how
it can lead to feeling “heartless” and “discriminative” within their social communities (Radovic
et al., 2017, p. 7). On the same note, recurrent exposure to social media content where people
promote their curated and idealized lifestyles on the media also enhances distorted juxtapositions
and feelings of insufficiency. In such instances, the target social media community would

13
personalize such experiences and irrationally take responsibility for curated experiences
pragmatically out of their control (Bhattacharjee et al., 2022; Radovic et al., 2017). In other
words, some viewers would want a similar lifestyle and have a distorted thinking and feeling of
socioeconomic inadequacy. In so happening, the situations perpetuate inherent harmful societal
and personal norms, beliefs, or negative thoughts.
Overgeneralization as an aspect of cognitive distortion is widespread and has far-reaching
implications in day-to-day life. As Trip et al. (2019) suggested, a person would assume that
because they have yet to get an invitation for a job interview after sending their job application,
they would never secure any jobs in the future. In such a case, one would take a segregated
event, such as not getting an interview, and over-infer it to all future job prospects. Inevitably, as
this happens, one feels discriminated against and develops anxiety (Trip et al., 2019),
perpetuating one’s emotional pains and negative and harmful norms.
The Concept of Cognitive Behavior Therapy and Its Connection With Cognitive Distortion
Cognitive behavior therapy aids in determining cognitive distortions as well as finding
solutions for those suffering from such distortions (Nakao et al., 2021). The leading roles of CBT
are to identify the unhelpful elements of cognitive distortion and replace them with better
elements that improve thinking, mental health, and physical well-being. Therapists administer
therapy to help the affected persons recover from cognitive distortion consequences. According
to Nakao et al. (2021), psychologists and therapists use methods such as restructuring and
reframing in CBT. The following section discusses the connection between CBT and elements of
cognitive distortion.

14
Connection Between CBT and Aspects of Cognitive Distortion
Cognitive behavior therapy targets irrational cognitive distortions, encompassing
inaccurate thoughts, attitudes, and behaviors. It challenges the negative impacts of cognitive
distortions, such as poor mental health, and improves sound reasoning. As such, CBT helps
individuals highlight some aspects of cognitive distortions (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2015). As
Kuipers (2006) posited, CBT is vital in improving the behavior of educators and students who
have symptoms of extreme cognitive distortion.
Most individuals experiencing cognitive distortion will view the best-case scenario as the
worst-case scenario. Therefore, this implies they would treat a mere mistake or a previous
erroneous act as harmful and catastrophic. In such a case, CBT supports averting such irrational
thinking (Alford et al., 1997) as it corrects the catastrophic thinking. Analytically, CBT guides
educators and students, who are the profound sufferers of cognitive distortion, to understand that
life is full of both challenges and good moments and events (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2015). The
therapy informs the individuals that minor life uncertainties do not predict eventual recurrent
failure. Relating to the aspects of Lukianoff and Haidt (2015), educators should guide the
younger generation to realize better ways to conquer problems they see as more prominent and
impossible to overcome.
Singal (2018) noted that ideas and concepts opposite CBT promote and reinforce harmful
cognitive habits such as catastrophizing and mind reading, which psychologists have long
identified as detrimental. As contended by Branch and Todd (2022), cognitive therapy controls
anxiety disorder. Studies have shown that students in universities are prone to unreasonable
phobias. With evidence-based treatment, there is a significant reduction of phobia and, hence, a
reduction in anxiety disorder among learners. Moreover, with an understanding of CBT’s role,

15
students can reason out the challenges appropriately. Through CBT, students get into desirable
positions that reasonably allow them to seek solutions for their aforementioned risks (Bellet et
al., 2020).
Cognitive behavior therapy works in numerous ways. For instance, it has the concept that
one’s behavior connects to feelings around certain events. Failure to control feelings can lead to
adverse outcomes. Young people have little ability to control their emotions and, hence, should
always be guided (Branch & Todd, 2022). Cognitive behavior therapy aims to show them how to
properly solve the anxiety and stress that cause them wariness and fearfulness. The therapy
adequately simplifies an individual’s self-believed extremities and reduces anxiety levels.
Besides, during CBT treatment, more focus is given to the present problems (Branch & Todd,
2022). Past events are ignored, as those affected may view this as judgment, which may reduce
the therapy’s effectiveness. Often, the causes of anxiety are divided into various sets to make the
treatment more effective in handling this anxiety. The problems are discussed separately to make
solutions more accessible, as it makes the victim realize that some issues are highly tenable and
should not be left to graduate to levels that can cause anxiety.
CBT in Managing Overgeneralization, Inability to Disconfirm, and Dichotomous Thinking
Overgeneralization is one aspect of cognitive distortion that CBT has proven effective in
managing. Cognitive behavior therapy focuses on identifying and correcting cognitive
distortions, such as overgeneralization, which are sources of non-adaptive behavior (Rabinovich
& Kacen, 2009). Overgeneralization brings about extremely negative and sad thoughts based on
a single occurrence. One would expect repeated unpleasant events because one witnessed them
before, thus resulting in poor prejudice (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Los Angeles, 2022). The
victims’ beliefs are not evidence-based and cannot be relied on. However, they still believe in

16
what they feel. Ideally, a single failure has nothing to do with future events in real-life scenarios.
Studies have shown that the modern modes of handling learners in schools and colleges have
distorted their ways of perceiving things or events. Research indicates that individuals,
particularly students, may overgeneralize past negative experiences to predict future outcomes,
perpetuating distorted thinking patterns (Dimidjian et al., 2006). In the present world, students
relate their past dismal academic performance to future academic fates in the same discipline. In
so doing, students grow to trust their distorted ways of thinking, thus overgeneralizing
(Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Los Angeles, 2022).
It is possible to restructure the distorted thinking that results in overgeneralization. In this
case, CBT plays a significant role in cognitive restructuring. Such non-pharmacological
interventions are crucial in encouraging individuals to critically assess their thoughts and
distance themselves from irrational beliefs. According to (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Los
Angeles, 2022), this process empowers individuals to free themselves from the tendency to
overgeneralize. Educators should embrace imparting CBT to their learners. Learners should be
made aware that life requires evidenced-based events rather than building on feelings of fear,
which attracts overgeneralization of negative events (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Los
Angeles, 2022). By adopting CBT to contain cognitive distortion, tutors can detach
overgeneralization from the students, enabling colleges to gain a positive turn of events.
Individuals who suffer from cognitive distortions are, in most cases, experiencing an
inability to disconfirm their thoughts on risks. Once they believe in one negative thought, no
amount of contrary opinion can shift their reasoning (Salkovskis et al., 2007). Celniker et al.
(2022) argued that the presence of cognitive distortion, precisely the inability to disconfirm, in
today’s learning environments has significantly disadvantaged learners intellectually. In a school

17
setting, the inability of a student to disconfirm their fears against particular educators (as bad
teachers), for example, makes them filter any positive ideas from them. Such distorted
individuals tend to believe that nothing that can help them would come from someone they have
a bad attitude toward.
Cognitive behavior therapy has effectively tackled this inability to disconfirm as an
aspect of distorted ways of thinking. Such therapy enables one to adapt to an environment with
negativities and positivity. It helps individuals to interpret properly occurrences within the
echelons of their environment. Without this, they could negatively misinterpret circumstances
within the environments and consequently fail to disconfirm their interpretations, even with a
better version of what they have misjudged. The therapies, therefore, impart a positive approach
by encouraging the affected person to go rationally about their thoughts (Cognitive Behavioral
Therapy Los Angeles, 2022). Learning institutions should adopt cognitive behavior techniques to
shape students’ viewing of some negative aspects of life. As Thoma and McKay (2014)
suggested, college campuses should implement CBT techniques because learners come from
diverse backgrounds with different predispositions to stress, fear, and anxiety; hence, they should
be harmonized into better, productive ways of thinking and going about their social lives.
People may initially be predisposed to negative messages, which can manifest and
exacerbate interpretations, leading to stereotype threat and imposter syndrome. These conditions
can significantly affect individuals’ performance and mental health, aligning with CBT
principles and emphasizing how thoughts, beliefs, and interpretations of situations impact
emotions and behaviors. Research by Steele (1997) and Schmader and Johns (2003)
demonstrated that stereotype threat can activate racial stereotypes, motivating individuals to
avoid conforming to these stereotypes, a concept central to CBT’s focus on identifying and

18
altering dysfunctional thinking. Additionally, the perspective that imposter syndrome arises not
from personal failings but from broader societal and institutional influences ties into CBT’s
strategies of reframing and rationalizing thoughts to reduce self-doubt and anxiety. Furthermore,
Edwards (2019) and van Bavel et al. (2017) highlighted how individuals’ perceptions and
cognitive appraisals shape their reactions to stereotype threats and negative messages, which are
key targets in CBT. The connections established by Ramsey and Spencer (2019) between
imposter syndrome, psychological distress, and fear resonate with CBT’s role in managing
anxiety and enhancing personal coping strategies in challenging situations.
Many students have trouble understanding themselves or others as they often get
emotionally stuck between attributes and criticism from their peers, social media, parents, and
tutors. At this time, students are victims of dichotomous thinking. Individuals with high
dichotomous thinking are very susceptible to prominent levels of depression, and CBT is vital in
controlling the effects as the therapy controls solely to emphasize the negative and positive
experiences (Arntz & ten Haaf, 2012). For example, CBT teaches the victims of dichotomous
thinking about better dimensions to perceive information that would spark stress and depression.
Pertinently, while addressing dichotomous thinking, CBT does not majorly focus on trying to
change what the learners, for example, have already perceived in their present life—as this
would attract an inability to disconfirm, which is another major predicament but instead
emphasizes processes that lead to the right or wrong and success or failure thoughts and culture
(Arntz & ten Haaf, 2012). By training learners to accept new ideas and reform their way of
receiving information, CBT can produce outcomes where victims can handle material with
depressive content. In other words, individuals can learn to let go of their past negative feelings

19
by making them understand that one current failure or wrong does not dictate another failure or
wrong in the future.
The Role of CBT in Managing Mind Reading, Labeling, and Emotional Reasoning
According to Woolfe et al. (2009), prejudgment over other people’s thoughts and
perspectives is a core aspect of cognitive distortion that has been heavily linked to CBT’s
benefits. Prejudice character traits may involve mind reading; some individuals would judge
others based on their feelings or suspicion. For example, a student would accuse their peers of
having negative thoughts about them, as they also often have negative opinions and feelings
about their peers. Woolfe et al. (2009) added that mind reading is a trait that makes people feel
everyone is judging them. For example, new students would be victims of mind reading in new
academic environments if not adequately oriented. Concerns arise regarding their stay and the
school’s culture (Woolfe et al., 2009). The theory behind CBT suggests it can peel away these
negative thoughts, enabling the reading of minds and the identification of negative perceptions in
victims. The process begins by revealing thoughts that are easily visible to the victims, followed
by reversing hidden unconstructive thoughts to foster a more positive thinking dimension.
Victims of mind reading find it challenging to share their problems because they feel
people are already judging them without knowing what they are experiencing (Usen et al., 2016).
Depression and anxiety take hold of students who frequently encounter mind-reading episodes.
A study by A. S. Morrison and Heimberg (2013) discovered that people who believe they can
read minds tend to have higher levels of anxiety and depression. Based on such outcomes, these
learners record dismal performance because they feel they cannot share their academic hurdles
and problems, as they would be unfairly judged as intellectually incompetent. Studies by Usen et
al. (2016) show that such learners would rather fail the course program than seek help. Through

20
numerous studies, CBT has proven to be critical in solving these problems both in an academic
environment and in general social construction; hence, CBT is a key solution for mind-reading
distorted thinking (Usen et al., 2016).
On the other hand, as Lam (2008) predicated, labeling, which is the act of treating and
perceiving some actions and words as dangerous or completely unpalatable or unsafe for people,
would cause challenges when the words or language used have sensitive meanings for the target
audience, especially when the target audience has been previously labeled negatively. From the
perspective of cognitive distortion, labeling is viewed with negative connotations since it can
cause trouble, depending on an individual’s context (Maruna & Mann, 2006). For instance, when
an individual is seeking therapy from a professional, and they are negatively labeled, they can
take it personally and consequently experience anxiety, stress, and depression. In general,
labeling damages how we are perceived by others, potentially leading to a distorted way of
thinking and, hence, a lack of cordial relationships between members who are embodied in a
similar setup (Maruna & Mann, 2006). Based on such findings, CBT is suitable for mitigating
the psychological aftermath of labeling.
The state of mind, mood, and emotions can distort how an individual reasons and
concludes. Emotional reasoning has a significant effect on those suffering from anxiety. When
emotions distort reasoning capabilities, the effectiveness of CBT is compromised (Brakoulias et
al., 2008). Therefore, CBT first emphasizes mood stabilization (Brakoulias et al., 2008), which
makes an individual reason adaptively. Adaptive reasoning enables a victim to counter the
negative effects of emotional reasoning. To get a deeper insight into how CBT could be used to
manage cognitive distortion, it is also essential to underscore the connection between cognitive
distortion and the concept of political correctness.

21
Political Correctness
In the contemporary world, there is controversy regarding the emphasis on emotional
safety, where people focus on avoiding potentially offensive language, terms, or ideas that align
with the core tenets and goals of political correctness. As Lukianoff and Haidt suggested (2018),
there is a growing overprotection of people, especially young people, from potentially
challenging debates and ideas that would create discomfort. The point of inference is that when
young people are subjected to challenging thoughts and opinions without following the concept
of political correctness, it refers to selecting appropriate words and using speech codes. These
speech codes prevent and suppress prejudicial or offensive language, damaging their mental
development and emotional resilience. Despite the trend and emphasis on political correctness in
colleges and universities, it is also verily axiomatic in society (Moss & O’Connor, 2020).
Learning institutions and various facets of societal settings increasingly accentuate the need for
speakers to use languages, words, policies, or measures that universally embrace psychological
safety and that do not, by any chance, offend or disadvantage a specific individual, a minority
group, or a group of people in society.
Various facets of life, such as the political aspects and mass media in Western society,
are undoubtedly obsessed with prudish and puritanical evaluation and understanding of language
as either politically correct or emotionally offensive (Ely et al., 2006). Society contemporarily
infers that fundamental moral values in line with the objectives of political correctness should be
augmented in all facets of society to mitigate self-victimization and promote civilization and
freedom—which is intertwined and complex to assess (University of Minnesota, 2016). As the
University of Minnesota (2016) posited, those contributing to the complexity of emotional
protection include often aggressive and cognitively distorted public political figures, journalists,

22
famous social media influencers and actors, and renowned proponents of mass media. Hence, the
resulting intricacy brought about by emphasizing political correctness in society is exacerbated
by this range of people who, after their controversial actions, leave the outcomes pedantically
adopted, reflected, and magnified in college campuses and social networks in general.
The implication of political correctness is conspicuously discernible in educational
settings, as Lukianoff and Haidt established in their book The Coddling of American Mind.
While the exact definition of political correctness may vary, its overarching goal is to emphasize
human commonality, discourage judgmental attitudes, and prohibit demeaning language
(Cepeda-Mayorga, 2017). The controversial connotations arise because, despite the good
intentions educators and schools have for students when emphasizing the enforcement of
politically correct measures, the enforcement process is blind, implying that the ideas behind the
methods are bad and meaning they do not pragmatically reflect the anticipated good intentions
onto the learners.
With the existence of politically correct measures, it has proven challenging for society to
differentiate and constructively correlate morality and violence, which obstructs the anticipated
good intentions from being realized. Mainly, this is because the violent perspective of morality is
constructed on the extent of perceived self-blindness, which can also be referred to as
autoimmune (Arfini & Magnani, 2015). In other words, the more self-virtuous a moral norm is
felt by society or people who implement and practice it, the less they would realize its integral
violence. Correspondingly, societies with stricter politically correct measures experience a
twofold danger of self-blindness. Such circumstances emerge because the political correctness
policy enactors and enforcers often overlook the possible strong moral position they impose and
presume the violent dimensions of their actions (Arfini & Magnani, 2015). The implication is

23
that policy enforcers may not fully realize their use of novel word phrases and language terms to
substitute for harsh, potentially offensive expressions, which might not lead to significant
changes. Despite the new terminology, people might still perceive these words or phrases as
highly humiliating and may continue to respond aggressively.
Obsessive focus on political correctness creates a social setting called a morality
environment, which is perceived to potentially inhibit subtle acts of exclusion, also called
microaggressions. Broadly, when people act in a polarized manner, become exceptionally
politically correct, and develop a culture of over-morality, society develops diverse motive
behavior patterns such as hypocrisy, abstractness, and idealization (Berndt Rasmussen & Olsson
Yaouzis, 2023). Hypocrisy as a consequence of over-morality has created a social climate where
people condemn and criticize almost all innocent, non-offensive language intemperance by
diverting their moral energies and indignations against innocent expressions (Vijayasingam et
al., 2021). Microaggression-related behaviors exacerbate hypocrisy as well. A relatable example
of excessive enforcement of political correctness and the emergence of hypocrisy and overmorality in society is the 2016 controversial firing of an Italian journalist who wrote sports
newspapers for his mass media employer. Because society perceived the language of his article
as offensive to women (Magnani, 2016), he was fired. Based on this context, hypocritical
political correctness is depicted as a violent way of avoiding speaking the facts or handling
urgent issues of violence swiftly, leaving the menace to reach an exceptionally hypocritically
pacifying state where people divert their energy from dealing with the real issues in question to
over-morality.
The social tension to remain morally correct enhances the development of pluralistic
ignorance, where people only embrace political correctness and over-morality to be publicly

24
identified and noted as ethically sensitive individuals (Van Boven, 2000). Due to social tension
and pluralistic ignorance in a socially sensitive society, it is highly possible to end up with a
social environment full of hypocritical acceptance of particular languages and diffusion of
specific contentious norms that align with political correctness goals and objectives at the
expense of the actual concern that should be prioritized in the first place (Van Boven, 2000). In
so happening, society focuses on the language used by the speaker(s) rather than the issue or
concerns presented in the speech or content, thus resulting in a misplaced priority by society on
language selection and usage.
Similarly, in addition to hypocrisy, when people develop a culture of over-morality,
society engages in another diverse behavioral pattern known as abstractness or idealization
(Magnani, 2016). Because political correctness and over-morality primarily focus on
controversial moral values, which in most cases do not practically reflect an increase in the
dignity of the affected individuals, the resultant social atmosphere breeds interludes of sweeter
discrimination (Dias, 2023). Although the consequent climate of sweeter discrimination is
perceived as socially inclusive and less verbally aggressive by society, through endless
abstractness and idealization, the victims still feel the discriminatory nature of the language in
question. In this context, over-morality, due to being exceptionally politically correct, favors and
concurrently borrows from abstract debates and ideal conversations surrounding minor rights to
be protected or defended, averting attention from more crucial societal moral issues
encompassing the socioeconomic and political aspects.
The Emergence and Growth of Political Correctness in American Society
Political correctness, which involves adhering to societal norms and beliefs to avoid
language or actions that may marginalize or offend certain groups, has been a topic of much

25
discussion and debate over the past 30 years. It first emerged in the 1960s and has become
prominent in various aspects such as media, education, and politics. However, its enforcement
has become controversial, particularly in the 2010s (Schwartz, 2010). In the contemporary world,
political correction or correctness has become a dominant force in various pertinent aspects of
society, including the media, education sector, and politics. The discourse surrounding political
correctness has extended to its implications for societal norms and freedom of speech, with some
arguing that it serves as a tool for criticizing the boundaries set on freedom of expression in
today’s political climate (Tan, 2019). This subsection delves into the inception of political
correctness in the 1960s and its gradual growth in the 2010s, focusing on the prevailing debates
and controversies over its enforcement in society.
The Inception of Political Correctness in the 1960s to 1990s
According to the philosophical and psychological studies by M. E. Spencer (1994) and
Lea (2010), the art, the practice, and the culture of political correction started in the 1960s.
During this time, several movements emerged, including women (feminism) unions, anti-racism
movements, the LGBTQ+ community, and movements for people with special needs, who were
then referred to as people with disabilities. These unions and movements sought to criticize
systematic inequalities in American society, such as discrimination and marginalization of
minority groups. To start with, discrimination against women emerged to be one of the largest
challenges in American society as it marginalized women in the 1960s (Burkett, 2019). As a
result, feministic unions such as the Women’s Rights Movement and the National Organization
for Women (NOW) emerged. These two unions were founded in 1966, and they emphasized the
use of better terms of employment and social inclusivity in speech and selection for job
opportunities for women (F. Davis, 1999). According to the movements, Yates (1975) and

26
Saltzman Chafetz (2006) suggested that male superiority was the order of the day in the 1960s;
language used in the workplace and workplace terms and conditions seemed to favor men. With
the continual fight for political correctness in the workplace (Strossen, 2000), the NOW union
succeeded when the U.S. Congress passed and implemented the historic Equal Rights
Amendment (ERA) bill in 1972 (Soule & King, 2006), which ensured that both men and women
had equal rights and all workplace language upheld inclusivity.
The NOW, the ERA bill, and women’s rights movements at large catalyzed the
emergence of political correctness in the 1960s and 1970s since they collectively, though subtly,
emphasized the proper inclusive usage of language and rhetoric (Radford-Hill, 2000). In this era,
the movements discouraged the usage of sexist and gender-discriminatory language and insisted
on the usage of respectful terms to refer to women. For example, NOW and ERA emphasized the
proper use of terms used to refer to women, including terms like “Ms.,” “Mrs.,” and “Miss”
(Rutter Strickling, 2009). Since these reference terms are primarily tied to a woman’s marital
status, the movements emphasized the neutral use of the terms. They recommended that people
should use “Ms” to refer to women since it is neutral as it does not reveal the marital status of an
individual instead of “Mrs.” and “Miss,” which, when used, implies the marital status of the
woman being talked about or addressed (Rutter Strickling, 2009). On the same note, the
women’s rights movements also discouraged the use of “chairman,” which embraced male
superiority in the workplace and society and instead embraced the use of “chairperson” as it is
comparatively neutral (Tibaijuka, 2016) and promotes inclusivity more than the former. In
accentuating the use of gender-insensitive language in American society, the women’s rights
movements disputed the inherent societal attitude and norms about the role and capability of
women, or female gender, in the workplace and society.

27
Racism is another factor that escalated the emergence and growth of political correction
culture in the United States society in the 20th century. Movements such as the National Labor
Union and the Civil Rights Act and Movement were formed between 1950 and 1970 to help
bring social equality to American society (Cassedy, 1997). In the 20th century, social injustices
were abundant, especially for Black Americans, who were recurrently segregated both from the
workplace, at school, and in society in general (Scalcău, 2020). These movements fought for
equal rights for everyone in the United States. without consideration of their race, religion, or
ethnic background (Wells, 2013). Rationally, as these human rights movements became more
widespread across Western society, people began to understand (in detail) the power of language
and rhetoric in society and their roles in reforming societal behaviors toward minority
communities (C. H. Lee, 2014). The movements considered ethnic epithets, such as ABC
(American-born Chinese) targeting Asian Americans (Louie, 2008) and ABCD (American-born
confused Desi) targeting Indian Americans (Mathison, 2017), derogatory and offensive. The
resultant social climate initiated the desire and urge to use alternative, inclusive rhetoric and
respectful language, which established the foundation for the growth of the culture of political
correctness in Western society.
The rise of complex gender identity revolutions, such as the LGBTQ+ community in
1969 in New York, played a vital role in the inception and growth of political correctness
between the early 1970s and 2000. As the LGBTQ+ community advocated for their social rights
across the United States in 1969, they underscored the societal use of sensitive, derogatory
language and stereotypes to refer to them (Wilson, 1996). According to the findings by Sesardić
(2007) and Clive Hamilton (2015), the LGBTQ+ community criticized the societal derogative
use of terms like “homosexual” and “homophile” against their lifestyles and instead insisted that

28
people should use insensitive, inclusive terms such as LGBTQ+—which stands for lesbian, gay,
bisexual, transgender, and queer—to refer to their minority gay community. Consequently, the
LGBTQ+ community’s fight for social recognition and protection against discrimination imbued
the growth of a sense of political correctness in Western society as the United States, for
instance, enforced various laws and policies on Americans, all of which were in line with the
principles and tenets of political correctness (U.S. Department of Justice, 2016).
Lastly and most importantly, people with disabilities have historically been at the
forefront of experiencing social segregation and discrimination. In the 1960s, social
discrimination, marginalization, exclusion from conventional society, and the use of offensive
terms (such as handicapped, cripple, and gimps) to refer to disabled individuals in the
community were very rampant (Andrews, 2019). As a result, as Meldon (2017) and the ADA
National Network (2016) suggested, disability rights movements and policies, including the
Americans with Disabilities Act, were formed in the 1990s in line with the Civil Rights
Movement of the 1960s to enhance civil liberty of people with disability and protect them from
social stigmatizations such as disabled identities. The movements aimed at discouraging the use
of any negative stereotypes of disabled individuals (L. J. Davis, 2002) and preferred the use of
socially inclusive and insensitive terms such as “people with special needs” rather than “people
with disability.” On the same note, the unions insisted on using alternative non-sensitive
reference terms such as “physically challenged” rather than “crippled” when referring to
mutilated or paralyzed persons. The disability rights movements also condemned using situationfirst language, where an individual is first identified by their prevailing disability conditions. To
ensure inclusivity and social justice in rhetoric and language, in a hospital setting, better
languages like “a person diagnosed with cerebral palsy” instead of “cerebral palsy person”

29
should be embraced. Therefore, in so swiftly and intensively challenging ableism in American
society, the Disability Rights Movements of the 1960s and the Americans with Disabilities Act
of the 1990s fueled the emergence and growth of the sense of political correction in the United
States and the West.
The Growth and Intensification of Political Correctness Since 2010
Comparatively, political correctness in the 2010s gained more traction and concern than
in the nineties. Since 2010, the concept of political correctness and its enforcement in society has
gained broad debate in the public discourse. However, the catalyzing factors behind the push for
the implementation of political correctness in the 2010s are somewhat different from those of the
1990s. One of the most significant factors is the emergence and growth of social media. The ease
of accessibility and broad audience on platforms such as Instagram, TikTok, Twitter, and
Facebook has resulted in a room where people discuss sensitive issues surrounding their social,
economic, and political aspects of life (Bail et al., 2018). Since communication on social media
is more convenient with distinct categories of users, including minority and marginalized groups,
people have found it easier to discuss their prominent issues with a more diverse target audience.
Therefore, minority groups have often found it easy to air their perspectives on the social
stressors of their society, creating inclusive dialogues that have consequently raised public
awareness on various social matters that touch on the need to enforce political correctness in
society.
Since 2010, people have more often accessed and used social media platforms
anonymously and have found it easy to seamlessly share and air their opinions and repressive
experiences in real-time without any fear or wariness over possible consequences or
repercussions of their actions (Aly et al., 2019). Social media has, therefore, given society a

30
voice to raise social concerns, including matters surrounding social injustices, epithetic
languages, overall diversity, and inclusivity issues, more effectively and comfortably than the
traditional physical approaches used before. Such occurrences since 2010 have led to massive
growth and intensification of political correctness in the United States and Western society.
Some researchers have also noted that social media lately (since 2010) uses exclusive
algorithms that target and filter specific topics, especially trending societal matters, to the target
audience who experience the concerns, thus promoting the need to implement political
correctness. In this context, social media has created ideal echo chambers that communities have
used to narrow down and simplify their perspectives and inputs on social matters related to
political correctness (Vogels, 2021a). With the echo chambers in place, as Woolley (2022)
posited, people in the social community have developed a call-out culture where public speakers
are called upon and held accountable for using derogatory, offensive, and repressive language
and rhetoric. By experiencing such actions, people have developed a fear of being criticized for
their language and actions. As a result, society has become more mindful of their selection of
words or phrases, resulting in an intensified sense and awareness of political correctness. A
relatable example is the Me Too Movement, a social media hashtag founded in 2017 to protect
women against derogatory sexual language and sexual harassment (Brittain, 2023). This
movement gained momentum in U.S. social media platforms as more people shared their
experiences of harassment, assaults, and abuse in the form of derogatory phrases, words, or
language. By holding the perpetrators accountable for their actions through social media, the
need to enforce political correctness has become more widespread and intense across American
society.

31
The next factor that promoted the growth and intensification of the culture of political
correctness since the 2010s is the emergence of socially dynamic Gen Z and millennials.
Millennials, born between 1981 and 1996, and Generation Z, born after 1997, display unique
characteristics and preferences that have influenced this cultural shift (Schroth, 2019). The 2010s
had one of the most significant social changes and cultural shifts in American society as the two
generations became the driving force in transforming and transitioning the societal practices,
beliefs, and norms concerning language and rhetoric. Gen Z and the millennials were brought up
in an intensely multicultural social environment, possibly resulting in a recurrent focus and
emphasis on inclusivity, social respect, and sensitivity to language, phrases, and words used in
speech. With these generations being susceptible to microaggressions and because they were
highly tech-savvy and embraced digital activism on sensitive matters, movements such as Black
Lives Matter emerged (Mina, 2019). The two generations were at the forefront of criticizing
societal norms and existing language, which is believed to have perpetuated issues of social
inequality and segregation.
On the same note, Gen Z and millennials developed the renowned cancel culture where
they confidently, without fear of facing potential consequences of their actions, castigated
perpetrators of controversial derogatory languages and statements in the United States, thus
holding the individuals accountable for their offensive social actions (Al-Jarf, 2023; Lukianoff &
Schlott, 2023). In this context, people started being sensitive in their language selection and
deliberate use of specific phrases to align with the fundamental principles and tenets of political
correctness. Therefore, it can be concluded that the generational shift heightened in the United
States, and political correctness emerged and intensified as people started to think and argue
toward constructive and progressive generational values.

32
With the swift cultural changes, the education sector in the United States in the 2010s
experienced radical changes aligned with political correctness’ building blocks. Since then,
universities and colleges in Western society have been pushing to create conducive, safe spaces
and inclusive cultures for all learners. Consequently, schools have emphasized inclusive policies
and guidelines, including ensuring inclusivity training programs among learners and using
gender-neutral labels on campus bathrooms (Martinez-Acosta & Favero, 2018). Similarly,
educators have been forced to use sensitive language and phrases in their classrooms to enhance
inclusivity across learners. As Cenoz and Gorter (2017) contended, the language and actions of
individuals can significantly affect minorities in society, schools, or any other social spaces. The
need for political correctness has grown significantly in U.S. society in the 2010s, and since then,
the culture has intensified gradually. To understand how deeply the culture of political
correctness has influenced American and Western society since the 2010s, it is crucial to analyze
and understand the ongoing debates and controversies over the enforcement of political
correctness.
The Ongoing Debates and Controversies Over Enforcement of Political Correctness
Notably, enforcing political correctness has gained widespread controversies and
criticisms in various societies. Numerous philosophical researchers and psychological adepts
have raised concerns about how enforcing political correctness in schools, public spaces, and
mainstream media, among other social spaces, impacts and demeans the right to free speech and
freedom of expression. The tension between freedom of expression, the right to free speech, and
using phrases and terms perceived as derogatory or discriminative in modern society has
enhanced debates over enforcing political correctness. As Reynolds (2009) and the United
Nations (2019) suggested, some specific rhetoric and languages or words eternize harmful

33
stereotypes and segregation and thus should be avoided. On the other hand, as Loury (2018) and
Anderson (1993) posited, other than protecting society, political correctness exacerbates selfcensorship, where people’s freedom of expression is highly limited. The complexity lies in the
proper use of aspects such as trigger warnings and gender-inclusive phrases and terms.
Many debates have also risen on how political correctness is applied in schools,
especially on college campuses. The discussion about establishing inclusive safe spaces in
Western universities is complex. Certain academics believe these spaces are crucial for
promoting transformative education and stress the significance of innovative teaching
approaches and practical applications (Trechsel et al., 2021). Evading possibly offensive
opinions can alter a student’s intellectual development. Concerns about the potential constraints
on free speech and academic freedom within the academy have been raised due to demands for
safe spaces (Callan, 2020). In this case, it is believed that stringent political correctness policies
prevent learners from exploring varying social perspectives, thus significantly altering the
intellectual discourses of learners and society (Grimes, 2020).
On the contrary, supporters of the policy quantify that it is the most effective way of
creating a constructive social setting for students where all learners can feel freely welcome as
part of the academic society. Although political correctness in the academic discourse has a
higher possibility of ensuring mutual sociocultural appropriation, where all learners feel
supported and protected by society, excessive restrictions brought about by political correctness
dwindle social expression (Paul Stob, 2013), thereby ebbing learners from desirable academic
creativity and social productivity. Therefore, this produces learners or graduates who are not
psychologically prepared to face real-world events.

34
Controversies have also emerged in the political sphere, where politicians have been
accused of using phrases like “illegal migrants” to refer to migrants in the United States. Such
terms have been criticized as being offensive, and alternative, inclusive phrases such as
“undocumented immigrants” have been embraced instead (Ruz, 2015). Supporters of political
correctness assert that the language or phrases we use to refer to a given marginalized group
shape our beliefs and norms. Therefore, using inclusive and sensitive language like
“undocumented immigrants” improves understanding among the target audience, thus promoting
a desirable sense of empathy. However, controversial opponents contend that using such terms
only coats the actual issues (Ruz, 2015), creating more complicated and confusing menace than
solutions. In other words, excessive application of political correctness destructively manipulates
the perceptions and opinions of the public concerning the issue in question rather than solving
the matter in the first place.
There is another conspicuous controversy on the language selection and usage of phrases
where the big question is on whoever has the legal right and social authority to decide which
phrase, language, term, or rhetoric is socially sensitive and which one is not (Moller, 2018).
Debates revolve around the universal dictation and declaration of some languages as being
acceptable and others being not palatable in the context of political correctness. In such a case,
criticisms have argued that political correctness is, therefore, an inherent tool people in power
positions use to dictate the social fates of the marginalized by thwarting their diverging logical
opinions to retain and prolong the status quo of manipulated perceptive opinions (Ely et al.,
2006). It is, therefore, arguable that it should be left in the hands of the marginalized to decide on
the languages and words that should considered repressive and offensive and those that should be

35
considered acceptable rather than leaving the decisions to individuals in positions of power at the
expense of the actual victims.
American society’s social dynamics have also raised many contentions about how
political correctness has impacted comedy and satire. The imprudent enforcement of political
correctness in American and Western comedy and theater industry has been criticized for
unfairly censoring comedians, inhibiting the portrayal of intended content or information (Young
& Young, 2020). Although it is appropriate for the comedy and theater industry to adjust and
adapt to the emerging trends in societal norms and cultures, excessive imposition of political
correctness has made it relatively complex for entertainers to make constructive jokes on
minority people as everything potentially against any of the tenets of political correctness is
currently viewed as a catalyst for undesirable and emotionally harmful stereotypes (Dutton,
2022). These controversies, specifically from the perspective of the pro-political correctness
section of society, are the key drivers behind the development of a societal mindset of safetyism.
The Inception of the Culture of Safetyism
Safetyism is a significantly intertwined emerging culture in modern society because it
encompasses a myriad of social aspects that are overly subtle in one way or another. Since
people have become more concerned about their emotional safety rather than their personal
responsibilities and actual societal issues, the rise and growth of the culture of safetyism have
become verily inevitable. Definitively, safetyism is the culture and tendency where people
prioritize and emphasize emotional protection and psychological safety over intellectual freedom
(Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018). The culture of safetyism deters people from practicing their
intellectual freedom, such as sharing their ideas, opinions, and thoughts freely—without being
questioned, criticized, or reprimanded—regardless of the controversial and critical nature of their

36
context of interest. The contemporary societal setting has reached a point where emotional and
psychological safety has become extraordinarily sacred and valued. Therefore, people have also
developed a tendency to be overly unwilling to make trade-offs empirically dictated by other
essential pragmatic and moral concerns. Such consequential predicaments significantly
contradict contemporary psychology and ancient wisdom from a plethora of cultures, especially
in the West, where people have consequently developed identity politics, call-out culture, and
endless intersectionality.
The general assertion is that the culture of safetyism compromises the social, emotional,
psychological, and intellectual development of young people, especially in high schools and
college campuses. However, the impact is region-specific to students and denotable in Western
society (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018). With the present-day partisanship, the growing political and
social polarization, and the intensification of cross-party animosity in society, the left and right
aspects of safetyism are succinctly encapsulated into a game of mutual provocation and
correlative indignation or reciprocal outrage. Owing to the tremendous growth of the culture of
safetyism, people have started to look for social shields from the world in various forms,
including trigger warnings, safe spaces, and walk-outs on public, political, institutional, or guest
speakers.
With the ever-increasing rates of anxiety, stress, and depression among the younger
generation, the use of trigger warnings, to start with, is the exacerbating driver behind the
growing depression and stress. As Lukianoff and Haidt (2018) suggested, trigger warnings are
not ideal approaches to the modern world, and should they be implemented in society and
schools, the mental health of the young generation would only deteriorate. This profoundly
happens since trigger warnings cultivate the audience with a danger mindset, which causes

37
trigger warnings’ good intentions to backfire. A label or warning not to watch or listen to
something can paradoxically stimulate the audience’s curiosity and interest in the content
(Bridgeland et al., 2023). This is referred to as the forbidden fruit effect, which has been noted in
several empirical studies and meta-analyses (Campbell & Manning, 2018). Studies by Campbell
and Manning (2018), Rooney (2021), and Irmak et al. (2020) show that people with trauma
histories either present no significant difference in their engagement rates or show substantial
increases in their engagement rates with contents flagged with trigger warnings, implying that
people get more curious with flagged contents as they ask themselves questions such as why the
content is flagged and this proves that trigger warnings backfire recurrently thus failing to
achieve the good anticipated intentions.
Anticipatory angst has a direct association with trigger warnings or labels. Ideally, based
on the evidence-based findings in the current complex societal setting and norms, the more
people interact with flagged contents, be it in school, on social media, or at social events, the
more they manifest anxiety-related symptoms, implying that trigger warnings significantly
dictate anxiety levels among the audience. An empirical study by Bellet et al. (2020) on trigger
warnings and resilience in university students found that when students are shown trigger
warnings or labels before watching or listening to content, they develop more anticipatory angst
than those not notified beforehand. In line with their findings, it can be accurately reported that
notification labels exacerbate nervousness, curiosity, concern, apprehension, or fearfulness
before viewing or listening to content, depending on the audiences’ previous history of anxiety
and trauma, whether tested or diagnosed. Therefore, trigger warnings may not be as helpful as
theoretically believed and might be gradually harmful in subtle but significant ways.

38
As trigger warnings increase anticipatory angst and anxiety, the expectation of feeling
anxious and stressed cultivates even more significant, far-reaching distress. The nocebo effect,
where the audience’s belief that an anticipated intervention will initiate harm leads to worse
outcomes than expected, highlights the significant implications of negative expectations (Hahn,
1997). This implies that when people are subjected to trigger warnings, they probably show
increased anticipatory distress. Still, the warnings bring no emotional or psychological benefits
to the audience. Studies by P. J. Jones et al. (2020) and Bridgland et al. (2019), where the
researchers investigated the impact of warning labels on students’ reactions to ambiguously titled
photos, found that people develop stronger anticipatory angsts and existential distress when
shown trigger warnings. However, despite being shown the warnings, there is no significant
benefit to showing them trigger warnings. Broadly, this means that instead of helping mitigate
potential stress and protecting the audience from potential emotional and psychological harm and
stress, trigger warnings lead to more significant, more profound distress.
Avoidance of distress and anxiety by creating safe spaces—where people feel confident
and free from discrimination, criticism, and psychological harm—only reinforces nervousness
rather than contains it. The basic purpose behind creating safe spaces in schools, workplaces, or
society is considerably faulty owing to the practical fact that avoidance results in further
avoidance, further enhancing already ongoing elevated levels of anxiety, distress, and angst
about a prevailing situation at hand. A longitudinal study by Badour et al. (2012) suggested that
stress therapies to remedy anxiety do not involve avoidance of triggers. To manage and treat
anxiety, the anxiety should be identified in the first place, assessed, and mitigated beforehand
rather than avoided. Therefore, forming safe spaces does not help in overcoming stress and
depression, nor does it help to treat it since the target audience, by walking out on guest,

39
political, or institutional speakers or content (such as videos, audios, or films), are running from
the reality in the actual world and this reinforces more wariness and fearfulness.
By forming safe spaces due to being subjected to (and interacting with) flagged content
through trigger warnings, emotional growth in society diminishes. Trigger warnings prevent
emotional growth. We develop and gain stronger resilience through accepting fear, facing all its
aspects, and developing a culture to allow it to pass with an informed knowledge that it will
eventually end (Bellet et al., 2020). Analytically, our emotions of distress and nervousness are
tolerable and even more bearable with the continual practice of resilience. Concerning this,
trigger warnings reinforced with an ever-growing culture of seeking safe space inadvertently
compromise the development and maintenance of desired emotional resilience. Several empirical
studies confirm that trigger warnings are arguably not as helpful as theoretically believed, as they
have higher possibilities of causing more harm or bad outcomes than the intended satisfactory
results to the audience, whether students or young people, and society in general.
Generally, as the public still calls for continued use and enforcement of trigger warnings
or warning labels on online social media content and one-on-one speeches, experientially
subjecting an audience to trigger warnings attracts more undesired, harmful outcomes than
projected. Research has found that alerts about potential triggers might not significantly impact
lessening negative emotions, intrusive thoughts, or avoidance actions (Sanson et al., 2019). The
use of trigger warnings could potentially reinforce individuals’ views of their trauma as central to
their identity and lead to outcomes such as a tendency to backfire, prominent levels of anxiety,
and the development of avoidance behaviors, such as walking out on public speakers or content,
counter therapeutically affecting those with trauma histories (P. J. Jones et al.,
2020).Collectively, these outcomes negatively impact the development of emotional tolerance

40
and psychological resilience, which are crucial traits in individual stress and anxiety
management. In other words, as CBT emphasizes societal exposure to uncomfortable real-world
thoughts, opinions, feelings, and occurrences, label warnings on content do the opposite,
potentially emotionally and psychologically harming a generation. Trigger warnings have a small
but genuine effect of increasing anxiety responses to distressing content, which could hinder the
development of emotional tolerance and psychological resilience (Bellet et al., 2020).
Despite efforts to establish the efficacy of trigger warnings, their impact on recipients’
psychological reactions remains a subject of ongoing research (Nolan & Roberts, 2023).
Confronting uncomfortable realities in the environment strengthens one’s confidence and
cultivates resilience, putting the power back into our hands and enabling us to confidently
manage and contain our day-to-day instances of anxiety and distress caused by intentional or
unintentional offensive language, diverging opinions, and trigger and content warnings. In
contrast, as society gradually develops a cultural trend where people excessively avoid risks and
develop excess fear for or aversion to failure, the culture of safetyism blossoms in several ways,
including through fragility development, censorship, and social fragmentation.
Fragility
Fragility, also called emotional fragility, is a tendency to be easily overwhelmed by
stringent and challenging emotions. In the culture of fragility, individuals feel highly vulnerable
to real-world emotional stressors and constantly develop an inevitable need to be protected.
According to Aster (2021) and Lukianoff and Haidt (2018), emotional fragility is brought about
by over-emphasizing psychological safety and physical protection above all other possible
occurrences. The existing menace of helicopter parenting, which refers to parental over-

41
involvement in their children’s social and general lives to protect and safeguard them from
potential perceived harm, has been enhanced by the culture of safetyism.
By over-controlling and over-protecting the young generations, especially by Gen Z’s
parents, society ends up with young people who are not ready to face the world (Vigdal &
Brønnick, 2022). This is because they are overly shielded from presumed dangers and societal
comforts or stressors that are not evidence-based. Consequently, American society has ended up
with a group of graduates or youths who lack independence and emotional resilience to progress
in the real world because they were not allowed to face reality by taking risks and learning more
from their mistakes. Fragility, therefore, as a consequential outcome of safetyism, leads to
cultures of conflict avoidance, emotional pain, psychological safety, risk aversion, and a rise in
anxiety.
Conflict Avoidance
Conflict avoidance refers to the tendency and act of avoiding and shying away from
intense conversations with a perception that it would result in emotional or psychological harm
(Celniker et al., 2022). People who encounter conflict avoidance often try as much as they can to
avoid any possibility of being directly confronted by an issue at hand or by a group of people or
an individual. Often, studies have shown that such individuals constantly change topics or
subjects, turn off a heated conversation or a discussion to a later time, or evade reinstatement of
the topic of contention. Various safetyism factors have been linked to promoting the growth of
the culture of conflict avoidance. First, the societal fear of litigation is the key factor behind the
growth of conflict avoidance. America is a highly litigious society where people are swift to
engage in the legal process over presumed harms, threats, injuries, or harassment (Celniker et al.,
2022). American culture is unique in this context as people often try as much as they can to

42
evade possible legal consequences due to being sued over potentially offensive or derogatory
remarks, comments, language, phrases, or rhetoric. As a result, people in American and Western
societies tend to prevent most, if not all, plausible conflicts with each other, which amplifies the
growth of the culture of conflict avoidance.
The prevailing American norm of individualism and a strong culture of personal
responsibility have highlighted a tendency toward conflict avoidance. Through policies and
practices, such entrenched individualism highlights a marked increase in individuals’ perceptions
of vulnerability to being publicly criticized or penalized for offensive actions or language
(Gunkel et al., 2016). This growing sense of susceptibility within Western society has fostered a
pervasive atmosphere of apprehension, explaining why many individuals avoid engaging in deep
discussions or debates that might lead to conflict. In this context, conflict is viewed as a personal
fault, with the understanding that if one’s actions escalate to harm, anxiety, or discrimination
against others, the individual in question is held solely accountable. Consequently, the potential
repercussions are often perceived as disproportionately severe, further deterring open dialogue.
The American education system’s enforcement of strict disciplinary rules and policies
has promoted the development of a conflict avoidance culture. Analytically, based on the cultural
complexity of American society with a focus on the education sector, schools have emphasized
protecting learners from harm (U.S. Department of Education, 2021). To achieve such a goal,
learning institutions have implemented policies to deal with disciplinary issues between students
and educators. The prevailing disciplinary policies are intolerance of practices and actions that
initiate conflict, intense arguments, or undesirable opinionated dialogues. Although it is
practically desirable to ensure safety for students, excessive focus on strict policies would lead to
society bringing up emotionally weak generations with significant incompetency in managing

43
conflicts, and as a result, such a society would do whatever it takes to avoid difficult situations
through the practice of conflict avoidance (B. Morrison, 2017; Vigdal & Brønnick, 2022).
Concisely, the practice of conflict avoidance in Western society is aggravated by continual
societal insistence on emotional safety and individuals’ psychological panic over the prospective
consequences of their actions. Therefore, to be safe, embracing safetyism implies avoiding
potential conflict—through conflict avoidance.
Emotional Pain
Definitively, an individual’s actions manifest emotional pain when they encounter
emotional distress due to sensitive viewpoints or arguments, making them decide not to take part
in or shut down or avoid the discussion in question (Meissner, 2015). Due to safetyism culture,
society demands protection from languages, words, and opinions they do not like, and this
affects college students especially because students experience a myriad of instances of
emotional pain; this comes from the fact that society and the education system at large have
taught students that words are violence, making students develop an increasing claim that leaves
them more anxious and more willing to quantify and justify all potential forms of harm (Haidt &
Lukianoff, 2021). According to psychological experts, emotional pain is compounded by more
complex, challenging emotions such as stress, anxiety, a predisposition to trauma, and a toxic
environment (Lumley et al., 2021). Rationally, safetyism has contributed to the emergence and
growth of emotional pain among students and society in several ways.
Firstly, safetyism has instilled an ever-growing culture of fear among people, especially
the young generation. This is highly apparent in the heightened security and safety measures
effectuated in the universities and colleges across the United States after terrible historical
events, including mass shootings (Abrams, 2022), such as the 9/11 attacks in 2001, the Virginia

44
Tech shooting in 2007, Sandy Hook School shooting in 2012, Robb Elementary school shooting
in 2022, and Parkland High School gun attack in 2018. Ideally, these events potentially created
fear among students in the United States, and it was desirable for learning institutions to heighten
security measures to create a safe environment for learners through safetyism—an environment
free from potential physical and psychological harm or attack. However, these measures have a
more significant potential to heighten a sense of fear, which consequently perpetuates a
consistent feeling of vigilance and anxiety, thus aggravating psychological distress and
emotional pain (Kimble et al., 2018). For instance, the presence of highly trained armed gate
guards and the intensive usage of modernized metal detectors or scanners at the entry points of
college campuses and high schools creates a perceived feeling of threat and potential violence,
which instills constant anxiety, fearfulness, and trauma thus exacerbating emotional pain among
the majority of—if not all—learners within the school compound.
On the other hand, safetyism has led to overprotective parenting, as discussed before,
which, in the context of emotional distress, would promote emotional pain among children or the
young generation. As parents strive to constantly safeguard their children from potential harm,
both physical and emotional, they subtly limit their children’s freedom of expression and impede
their practical interactions with possible challenges in the real world (Clarke et al., 2015). As a
result, young people brought up in this manner become highly dependent on their parents or
society for every difficulty they encounter in life as they lack the self-confidence to face their
challenges (Haidt & Lukianoff, 2021). The resultant social environment is possibly the endless
feelings of anxiety in the kids and the consequential perception of inadequacy, which creates
more emotional pain than could be imagined.

45
Safetyism has fostered a culture of hypersensitivity and the widespread use of trigger
warnings, ostensibly to protect individuals from stress or discomfort. While such measures might
seem beneficial and productive in the short term, they can lead to emotional inflexibility and
cultural rigidity over time. This environment, as Celniker et al. (2022) suggested, makes it
increasingly difficult for individuals to cope with and navigate through significant social
challenges. As a result, emotional distress becomes an almost inevitable consequence.
Offensive speech, especially on social media, is a complex issue where distinguishing
between free speech and hate speech can be subjective (Watkins & Clark, 2023). Additionally,
the rise of safetyism may inadvertently restrict freedom of speech, as once deemed
commonplace, expressions are now often considered offensive. The movement toward ensuring
safety and inclusivity has led to the categorization of numerous topics, opinions, and rhetoric as
potentially offensive, thereby triggering anxiety and stress. Furedi (2016) highlighted this shift
toward a culture of fear, preoccupied with risk, and a redefinition of prejudice into political
correctness. This societal trend toward suppression encourages content censorship and selfcensorship, making individuals hesitant to express their true thoughts and beliefs. Such selfrestraint can foster frustration and lead to profound emotional distress. In attempting to create a
safer and more inclusive society, there is a paradoxical risk of engendering a culture that
undermines emotional resilience and hinders genuine discourse.
Some contemporary studies have also established that safetyism promotes selfdisconnection and social isolation among people, especially the younger generations. In a
societal setting that emphasizes emotional protection and physical safety more than all other
crucial aspects, people may avoid participating in social activities that constructively enhance
social interactions and connection with others (Beauchamp, 2018). For instance, in a school

46
setting that highly prioritizes safetyism culture, it is highly possible that most learners, especially
from marginalized groups, would shun extracurricular activities that involve heated contentions
perceived to potentially cause emotional harm or psychological discomfort. The constant sense
of isolation and feeling of loneliness in such a scenario unquestionably promotes emotional pain
among the victims—the students.
Psychological Safety
Psychological safety encompasses a series of actions where society over-emphasizes
creating a social setting that makes individuals feel considerably safe, secure, and comfortable
when expressing their opinions without fear of being reattributed or judged differently (Trump,
2018). Fragility as a consequence of safetyism compromises psychological safety. While losses
of self-independence among the young generation as a result of fragility and safetyism may seem
trivial, the resultant environment of a fragile culture greatly affects the status quo of
psychological safety. It is important to have a social environment where individuals feel secure
and comfortable expressing their opinions without fear of retribution or judgment. When
children are exposed to an environment where they feel safe to talk and share ideas, they can
realistically reevaluate their rhetoric and language amid their speeches, and in so doing, they are
likely to develop greater emotional tolerance when they become adults (Malik & Marwaha,
2022). However, at the expense of all other pertinent factors related to fragility, an excessive
focus on safety teaches children that their social environment—or the world, in general—is an
exorbitantly dangerous place that people should be protected from or face with many precautions
at all times. For that reason, children carry such attitudes and beliefs to college with the
anticipation that they will be shielded from violent and harmful thoughts and language, leading

47
to the current intertwined menace of psychological safety in college campuses for Gen Z, to be
specific.
It should be noted that children are pragmatically antifragile (Kaveladze et al., 2021).
This implies that children benefit more from being exposed to mild social risks and their
corresponding potential setbacks in society than when their parents embrace helicopter or
bulldozer parenting on them, where they are overprotected in the name of psychological safety.
The argument is that parents should not intentionally subject their children to mortal dangers or
extreme psychological trauma. However, they should note that children’s response to prevailing
measures of adversities builds their self-reliance and confidence and allows them to survive,
manage, and thrive later in life as adults (Kaveladze et al., 2021). From this perspective, parents
who mainly controllably dwell on their kids’ fragility both inside and off school instead of
allowing them to interact with other children and take part in unstructured activities breed an
unreliable and emotionally weak generation.
Overstressing fragility on the young people in society, expecting to fulfill the tenets of
safetyism, brings more bad than good. The practice fills the children’s schedules and brains with
simulative mindsets and cultures. Here, any slight unprecedented occurrence markedly
deteriorates their mental resilience and psychological health. Such trends are prevalent in
privileged families where children are treated like eggs and only exposed to music, language
lessons, or other in-house activities of such category in the hope that such activities would
prevent them from encountering harm or dangers and ultimately help them excel academically to
gain admission to top-class elite colleges and universities (Luthar et al., 2019). On the contrary,
children from less privileged families tend to get enough free time to interact with others, thus
developing a higher degree of independence and greater levels of unsupervised play/social time.

48
Logically, these different types of parenting based on economic classes provide a deeper insight
into why fragility is widespread in today’s university students. Students who come from
privileged families are far likelier to be at the university in the first place, especially the top-class
elite universities where many episodes of institutional unrest and gun attacks have unfolded than
their counterparts from less privileged backgrounds. Based on the fact that the former are
brought up in a social environment that prioritizes their safety, and to be precise, their emotional
safety more than anything else, it is not shocking that they get to experience and view the
learning process at the university entirely through the lens of physical and emotional safety
rather than from the perspective of knowledge. Fragility, therefore, erodes emotional resilience,
deteriorates self-independence, ebbs away self-confidence, and creates psychologically
destructive conformity, all of which recurrently lead to the need for emotional safety or
protection in young college students.
Risk Aversion
The concept of fragility, as enhanced by the culture of safety, has transformed people’s
perception and inclination toward engaging in heated discussions and risk avoidance. Risk
aversion shapes society to tend to evade any controversial conversations and challenge prevailing
beliefs and norms. People may mainly practice risk aversion to ensure emotional safety and
psychological well-being (Arslan, 2022). The majority of earliest studies argue that although
risks and benefits bear direct correlation in the sense that they are positively correlated in society,
they are pragmatically negatively correlated in individuals’ minds and judgments (Fischhoff et
al., 1978). Risk aversion behaviors are a result of an individual’s vulnerability and
hypersensitivity to perceived emotional harm and distress and have been deepened by the

49
excessive use of content labels or warnings and enforcement of safe spaces in learning
institutions as a way of ensuring safetyism (Celniker et al., 2022).
For years, university educators and speakers have become more sensitive in the content
they pass to their learners, and as a result, they have been compelled by the complexity of society
to provide prior warnings before indulging in controversial discussions touching on societal
aspects like race, sexuality, and gender. While such pro-safetyism activities were relatively
effective in the early times, the sociocultural complexity of the present Gen Z and millennials
(especially about how emotionally fragile they are) have thwarted the progress of safetyismdriven activities, such as content warning and safe spaces (Sztajer, 2022). The resultant
environment is full of emotional fragility and situational avoidance, where, instead of learners
taking advantage of the trigger warnings and safe space to improve their emotional well-being,
they become more emotionally fragile and evade potential (emotional) risks associated with
controversial conversations.
Universities and colleges have noted that students do not register for some specific
courses in their course programs because of how insensitive those courses are portrayed. For
example, courses that touch on aspects like sexuality—definition of sex and sexual orientation—
and gender identity have gradually recorded descending trends in their admission and registration
rates (Furedi, 2016). This is because young people have been brought up in a very multicultural
social environment full of sensitive issues such as LGBTQ+, which have enhanced their fragility
and fearfulness on such topics. College and university students tend to believe that pursuing such
sensitive courses increases the likelihood of indulging in topical discussions and learning
outcomes that might objectively challenge their inherent beliefs and norms, ultimately making
them uncomfortable, anxious, and emotionally hurt. By practicing risk aversion techniques

50
where they avoid such courses and programs at school, students miss out on crucial diverse
perspectives that would otherwise improve their emotional tolerance and self-confidence in
handling extreme situations (Solórzano & Huber, 2020). It is therefore relatable that risk
aversion behaviors, as a result of emotional fragility exacerbated by excessive enforcement of the
culture of safetyism in a society, is what leads to the possible reality that the current world is
bringing up a weak generation—setting up a generation for ultimate failure, as Lukianoff and
Haidt (2018) suggested.
Similarly, subtle forms of derogatory language and unintentional phrases that were
traditionally treated as normal (i.e., non-offensive and socially acceptable) have been interpreted
by modern society as extremely unpalatable (McTernan, 2021). As young people have a higher
susceptibility to being offended by a myriad of societal actions, phrases, and rhetoric due to
increased emotional fragility as a consequence of the gradual inordinate imposition of safetyism,
they are more likely to be affronted by minor and slight disagreements (Poggi & D’Errico,
2018). Students, for instance, are more likely to interpret every subtle and inconsequential slight
as planned personal or emotional attacks against them, which perpetuates social sensitivity and
leads to prolonged risk aversion behaviors. Prominently, the consequential outcome challenges
the young generations of Gen Z and Millennials, as it compromises their intellectual
development, hinders their emotional growth, and limits their constructive, healthy social
interactions with their peers through conversations and discussions.
Safetyism-driven actions have also inculcated into society a fear of failure and an endless
desire for self-validation among college and university students (De Castella et al., 2019).
Findings show that the idea of fragile ego is significantly growing and is widespread in Western
culture. The fragile ego concept teaches young people to do whatever it takes to avoid facing

51
potentially challenging emotional situations or psychological experiences that may result in
failure and instead concentrate on activities that embrace a positive personal image (Arnold &
Douglas Brown, 2016). Such a mindset prevents learners from taking risks and trying new
experiences since they perceive that probable failure would deteriorate their self-esteem. As a
result, risk aversion attitudes continue to become the order of the day among young people with
the hopes that they will not encounter unrealized emotional dangers, distress, anxiety, and latent
harm.
Rise of Anxiety
Anxiety is a common emotional response to perceived potential risks, dangers, and
threats from one’s social environment. Anxiety is manifested with heightened levels of fear,
stress, wariness, and uneasiness when confronted with opposing ideas, opinions, or contentions
(Lambert et al., 2021). Anxiety contributes to fragility in university and college students and
society in general in various ways. Firstly, through students’ constant and consistent habit of
catastrophizing things, anxiety emerges. Empirical studies show that students have a heightened
tenancy of imagining and perceiving the worst outcomes of their prevailing situations based on
previous adverse outcomes (Hofmann, 2015). Students overestimate the future adverse
outcomes, which leaves them in a climate filled with the fear of the unknown. As a consequence
of catastrophism, the fearfulness culture among students and the young generations at large leads
to undesirable reluctance to face the world, including not participating in activities with possible
diverging negative beliefs, outcomes, and values, contributing largely to fragility.
Moreover, faulty and irrational sequences of polarized thinking aggravate unintended
feelings of anxiety (Beckand & Rush, 1985). For instance, through polarized thinking, students
or society develop emotional reasoning (Thagard, 2008), where decisions are based on personal

52
feelings rather than logical, evidence-based analysis of the truths and facts regarding a matter in
question. Therefore, young people recurrently ultimately treat their feelings of fearfulness and
anxiety as evidence and proof that their suggestions, beliefs, and norms are under threat of being
opposed or criticized. This distorted perception of prevailing social situations elevates the sense
and feeling of fragility.
The continual engagement in Black-and-White discursive thinking among young people,
especially in school settings, has also intensified anxiety and fragility. Nowadays, young people
often view things from two extreme opposite points (Al-Mosaiwi, 2019). They perceive things
without having any room for suggested nuance or gray areas. Everything in this context is
viewed as—wholly—right or wrong or as a success or failure with no-in-between room for
situational reconsiderations. As Meyer (2020) argued, viewing things as completely wrong or
right has ingrained into society a belief that confrontation with opposing, divergent opinions and
thoughts shatters an individual’s intrinsic beliefs, thereby intensifying fragility. On the same
note, Lukianoff and Haidt (2018) stated that people’s fragility levels are often dictated by their
innate sense of entitlement, wherein they have the inevitable extreme belief that they should be
protected from any forms of emotional distress and social discomfort. By having a feeling that
they have the right to not take part in events or actions that may contradict or criticize their
customary norms and make them uncomfortable, the young generation becomes unable to view
things positively, further amplifying emotional fragility. From this context, it is undoubtedly
critical for society to be keen on how they manage and keep up with the highly emotionally
fragile generations—Generation Z and the millennials.

53
Censorship
Censorship is the concealment of discourse, open communication, and information.
Censorship can be achieved on the premise that the traditional social phrases and rhetoric in
society are seen as shocking, destructive, touchy, or badly designed. Censorious culture has been
embedded in society and learning institutions and facilitates destructive trends in Western
society, especially among the young generation. Lukianoff and Haidt (2018) unpacked distinct
reasons that result in censorship, especially on college campuses. Factors that Lukianoff and
Haidt mention include modern parenting styles and political and cultural trends. These trends
have mostly affected Generation Z, who joined learning institutions at the peak of the safetyism
culture. As a result of experiencing an escalated safety culture, they tend to lack preparedness to
manage intellectual challenges and approach life’s challenges extemporaneously. In response,
social justice advocates safeguarding and protecting the young generation from perceived harm
from society have created a culture of censorship and viciousness. As a result, America has built
a monumental bureaucracy to handle the problematic responses taught to young individuals at
the first stage of discomfort. This has seen the constant growth of American society with
individuals who cannot handle discomforts. Broadly, the culture of safetyism has yielded a
protection criterion of censorship through language manipulation, ostracism, iconoclasm,
labeling, privilege, and victimhood.
Language Censorship
Language censorship involves traversing the meaning of some words sealed to trigger
pain, harm, or anxiety and some ideas deemed to be objectionable. Safetyism has contributed to a
considerable proportion of the growth of censorship (Ji & Knight, 2018). Censorship and
safetyism are concepts that have been used to explain the suppression of heated speeches,

54
controversial debates, and tough discussions, among others. Safetyism has created a culture
where individuals are highly intolerant of opposing views, criticizing books and debates. The
culture orchestrates a norm of distorted views where some individuals treat opposing views as us
versus them rather than contemplating positive discussions (Billiani, 2014), bringing about
censorship.
One key influence of language censorship, as caused by safetyism, is the craving to keep
a strategic distance from causing discomfort or inconvenience to others. Being cautious about
offending others has resulted in carefully choosing words and avoiding phrases that are seen to
be offensive and annoying (Müller, 2004). In schools, most students who have contrary opinions
to trending discussions fear rising to defend their views for fear of being shut down. As such,
most learning institutions have capped usage of certain words that are treated and perceived as
harmful in the sense that they may cause social acrimony within the learning environment.
College educators and public speakers have become extremely cautious about what they
talk about, publish, and teach, with the view of protecting the feelings of everyone in society, be
it school or community. However, this overprotection and overcautious culture have deprived
students of their critical thinking skills and ability to handle disagreements (Coetzee, 2018). To
further safetyism by potentially creating an enabling environment deemed emotionally safe,
censoring certain words (such as gendered dialect, which may bring a culture of exclusivity) has
been reinforced by many universities, especially in American society. The growth of modern
language among young people is another reason for censorship concerning the idea of safetyism
(Coetzee, 2018). Learning institutions view most new slang among the young generation (Gen Z)
as objectionable and further restrict students and educators from using the known old language
deemed universal and proper. For example, in American society, words such as “hordes,” which

55
have been used to refer to immigrants, have been banned as they are believed to be offensive, as
propounded by The American Federation of Teachers (2023) and Stollznow (2020). On the same
note, rapid technological development has also seen a vast increase in internet access by
students, causing an increase in moral panic among parents, students, and tutors for fear of dire
consequences facing students who use censored words online (Lawson & Comber, 2016). The
stakeholders, who are teachers and parents, have therefore moved to restrict the use of some
words they fear may cause harm to the target online audience. Ideally, the restrictive move is
tailor-made to shield the students from destructive responses from their counterparts using social
media. However, the effectiveness of these measures in improving individuals’ emotional wellbeing and advancing students’ intellectual growth remains a subject for continued discussion.
Moreover, through the culture of safetyism, tutors and parents have developed, through
subtle censorship, a framework that filters materials such as books, journals, and historical
documents that may contain unsafe content for young learners (Štular, 2022). Censoring certain
words that are seen to be repulsive and discriminatory has seen many schools enacting stringent
regulatory policies and legal frameworks, which has created pressure among institutions,
especially learning institutions, to double-check the language and dialect used in such
institutions, creating another platform for language censorship (D. Jones, 2001). Researchers
argue that this is particularly important in evading the effects of going against set policies and
laws on certain words deemed unfit to be used within society. Since safetyism is seen as a sacred
value aimed at protecting the citizens from potential harm brought by objectionable words and
material ideas, among others in American culture (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2015), the rise of
language censorship was pragmatically unavoidable as the two elements of safetyism and
language censorship are closely correlated in the public discourse. Regardless, as proponents

56
support language censorship for a compelling cause, opponents view it as a suppression and
repression of freedom of expression, as Pinker (2018) contended.
Ostracism
Ostracism involves censoring or conscious disbarring of individuals or their ideas,
thereby preventing their voices from being heard or considered (Williams, 2007). In as much as
Gen Z is known to be socially vocal on the account that they feel their views would always be
accepted, most of them hide their opinions in fear of ostracism—being socially excluded
(Lukianoff & Schlott, 2023). Safetyism has a considerable influence on ostracism as it
(safetyism) has impacted the emergence of ostracism through cancel culture.
Cancel culture, defined as the mass withdrawal of support for speakers, educators, or
individuals viewed as public figures (Clark, 2021) because of doing things considered socially
inappropriate and unacceptable by society (Dudenhoefer, 2020), portrays two sides, the side
producing positive effects and the side producing negative effects (Takayama, 2021). For
example, it can be positive when shunning those who are gender-sensitive, for instance,
promoting the voice of women and shaming sexual harassment in the workplace. However, the
cancel culture can work negatively by ostracizing those voicing their opinions for positive social
development. In education, cancel culture has stifled the freedom of speech (Norris, 2020). Some
employees have often lost their jobs for expressing their concerns on different cultural platforms.
For fear of ostracism, many people have concealed important opinions that create value in
addition to cultural, economic, and social development (Marinovic et al., 2022). In the historical
American culture, one would be ostracized due to their race, as they would not be allowed to
share their divergent views lest they get excluded.

57
Safetyism is at play in educational institutions, showcasing the effects of ostracism. For
instance, in the contemporary learning setup, most parents have abandoned their traditional
responsibilities of raising kids well, leaving teachers with much supervisory work. Consequently,
educators have been compelled to formulate many school rules and regulations to guide students.
Learners who fail to abide by the rules are ostracized and face repercussions for disobeying the
school rules. In response, their learning morals deteriorate (Polat Hüsrevşahi, 2021). On the same
note, teachers have also faced discrimination and ostracism from social media and parents when
they pose intellectual challenges while handling badly brought-up learners. This negatively
affects teaching and learning.
Another significant effect of safetyism is workplace ostracism, as individuals can be
ignored by their peers and superiors. For example, a worker who may experience mental
challenges or be believed to be inferior to others can be ignored by peers and superiors, avoiding
answering their workplace-related requests and having direct conversations with them (Liu &
Xia, 2016). This can be disturbing and emotionally hurting. The ultimate consequence is the
dismal performance of the employees who face ostracism because they have lost motivation for
work. Extremism can make employees feel they are not valued in the workplace and thus resign
from their positions. In American society, safetyism has manifested itself primarily through
ostracism by marginalizing specific communities. For instance, in the wake of most Islamic
terrorist attacks, the Pew Research Center (2017) suggested that Muslim communities are often
ostracized to create safety as they are perceptively associated with the terrorists. On the same
line, as Kuokkanen (2020) argued, in America, ostracism has shaped democracy and seen even
those in marginalized groups ascend to power.

58
Iconoclasm
According to González Zarandona (2015), iconoclasm is the deliberate demolition of
icons, works of art, and images to avert certain beliefs and viewpoints. Concisely, it symbolizes
the rejection and objection of images, especially those hosting human figures and social beliefs,
regardless of the intent (Noble, 2012). Safetyism has, most often through censorship, created a
platform for iconoclasm. For example, in America, some iconoclasts act as conservatives in
trying to consolidate power by averting unruly forks (Adams, 2020). Various monuments
representing dictators and confederate figures have been destroyed to create a safe place free of
dictatorship, racial abuse, and discrimination, as they are viewed as symbols of vices in society.
The confederate monument of Robert E. Lee and the post-colonial American royal leader’s
iconic images are examples that have undergone destruction, as H. Spencer and Levenson (2021)
asserted.
Iconoclasm as a social facet of safetyism has seen iconoclastic conservatives suggest the
banning and removal of some books from American libraries (Jean, 2021). For example, some
members of a Virginia school board requested that some books they complained contained
sexual content be burned, and this has been a rallying cry across different school libraries (Jean,
2021). The books and articles were believed to contain words and images harmful to students.
Consequently, warning labels have been used to create awareness about the potential harm of
some materials that contain offensive content to make a safe environment.
Label warnings have provided a base for the destruction of some arts of work that portray
offensive, violent, and questionable viewpoints. For instance, when teaching historical classes,
teachers are encouraged to censor photographs of colonial dictators at the start of the lesson;
instead, they are advised to gradually explain the turn of events to the students (Stradling, 2010).

59
Nonetheless, some historical artifacts that portray violence and unethical points of view have
been destroyed. A relatable example is the historic Islamic individual in the United States, who,
in his own opinion, viewed the Roman-era statue as going against the beliefs of the Torah and
decided to pull it down (Jean, 2021). Safetyism, therefore, in this case, led to the destruction of
many culturally rich artifacts—through intense iconoclastic beliefs.
There has been a controversy on the American religious front about whether pictures
should be placed in churches. Many iconoclasts feel unsafe with pictures on the walls as they
may be confused with objects of worship (Kapp, 2020). For instance, missionaries, in their quest
to spread Christianity, campaigned for the destruction of pictures and text of some religious
deities in pre-colonial America. Still, from the perspective of religion, the non-Christian frescos
have been banished and statues of their leaders destroyed (Abdul Rahim et al., 2021). This is not
done because the statues contained erroneous viewpoints but because they were creating an
unsafe environment for the Christian faithful. Iconoclasm is also axiomatic in different political
arenas in America. Through censorship policies, iconoclastic leaders tend to eschew certain
ideas, conversations, and techniques for handling their contemporary political leadership
challenges with the aim of keeping their political settings safe and inclusive (Adams, 2020). As
much as this would be considered safe for their political supporters, politicians and the general
public should note that some aspects of ancient leadership ideas are still essential and would
create extreme challenges when scrapped.
Labeling
Labeling is a term used to describe an action of generalizing the outcomes of an event by
taking a single characteristic of one previous event and applying it to the overall expected
outcomes (Garand et al., 2009). It involves consecutively using extreme terms to describe people

60
and ideas based on their behavior and social correlativity. Individuals deviating from social
contracts or ideas not in tandem with the generally accepted cultural norms can be labeled
negatively (Ninio & Bruner, 1978). Ideally, labeling individuals without validity or consideration
of impact can infringe on freedom of expression and diversified viewpoints. As practiced in
colleges, safetyism through censorship of unwanted opinions and information has seen students
inappropriately label what they consider harmful. For instance, many professors, counselors, and
guest speakers have been silenced because their viewpoints are considered contrary to
maintaining a safe environment for students. This inhibits space for development in terms of
creative and intellectual thinking.
Another example of labeling culture as a consequence of safetyism and censorship is
when individuals use labeling to protect their properties and homes. For instance, young people
would fear associating with a person labeled as a thief (Raybeck, 1991) as parents would also not
allow their children to interact with people who have been labeled as child abusers in society.
The accompanying social climate brings a lack of trust in society and brings about primary
deviance. Labeling has seen political shifts in the American political arena as public figures try
to be safe from their electorate. For example, some leaders are labeled as democrats, republicans,
conservatives, liberals, and racists, among others (Withers, 2020). The public reduces the
inappropriately labeled leaders whenever they make controversial statements or speeches. A
suitable example is Patrick Lloyd McCrory, the former governor of North Carolina who in 2012
was labeled a “RINO” (Republican in name only) and disabled because it was believed that in
his tenure, he was not representing the interest of his people—the electors.
Some individual behaviors that are executed under very abnormal states have been
labeled as mental challenges and disorders. Labeling every action pathological as an excuse to

61
avoid taking responsibility has been rampant and has taken an undesirable dimension for social
well-being (Valdez, 2021). Safetyism has caused many artists to refrain from most of their
creative arts as they fear creating artistic work that could potentially be labeled and censored as
emotionally destructive and that is not within the set-up social rules. Through many regulatory
platforms, some music, pictorials, graphics, TV, and radio programs have been labeled as
sensitive and not worthy of public consumption. In response, the public deems artwork as
harmful. This hinders the development of the creative and artistic industry as many artists shy
away from producing what may spark public backlash.
Labeling, as much as proponents mean it for protection against offensive points of view
and materials, is also a cause of concern as it can create deviance (Greer & Reiner, 2014).
Individuals who have been falsely labeled as socially deviant and culturally censored from
associating with others can experience heightened anxiety, stress, and depression. For instance,
when an individual is labeled as an outsider and a criminal by society, they can seek to break the
laws set by society and become criminals out of unprecedented extreme anxiety and depression.
Privilege and Victimhood
Censorship, as intertwined with safetyism, has manifested social privilege, where
individuals are treated as marginalized and ask for social protection. More generally, in
American society, parents have adopted the tendency to overprotect their children. In this case,
children develop notions that they are always entitled to positive things and, hence, lack the
mental agility to face negative consequences (Horwitz, 2018). Politics and places of work also
generate the concept of privilege and victimhood. Some political elites may constantly subject
themselves to the victimization of social and mainstream media (Horwitz, 2018). For instance, in

62
American politics, as Luo et al. (2021) reported, former U.S. President Donald Trump viewed
himself and his supporters as victims of media criticism.
Safetyism has impacted individual privileges and victimization more broadly in society.
Many people feel that because they are privileged to be in a marginalized group, they can do
whatever they need to do confidently, as they get much support from other members of society.
For example, those with privileges can utter certain words and feel protected; a Black man can
discuss racism and be taken positively, contrary to the same words coming from a White man in
American society (The Mac Weekly, 2015; White & Cones, 1999). A woman would be viewed
as harsh and independent when she challenges a man, a perception that creates a society where
the privileged, for example, women and Black people, feel (as negative) victims whenever they
come across any opposition. In the workplace, safetyism has resulted in microaggressions,
leading to daily putdowns and invalidations between workers and their colleagues who have no
intentions of harming them. According to White and Cones (1999), these pushdowns and
invalidations have created a culture of privilege and victimhood in the workplace. On many
occasions, volunteers have fallen victim to safetyism (Fattoracci & King, 2022) as their
management often overprotects them. Employees in the workplace often fall victim to difficult
circumstances with limited critical and intellectual thinking. They feel effortless with the
protection from negative opinions toward them due to privilege.
Censorship is also evident in Christianity religion. For instance, Christians have had
privilege over their counterparts, such as Muslims and Jews. Christian views were often accepted
and seen as correct regardless of their impact on society (Zhang & Weiss, 2022). Nonetheless,
Christians in ancient times were viewed as politically correct, which gave them emotional safety
and protection over their actions and preferences. Such ancient privileges have resulted in

63
disharmony among the different religious groups. Therefore, at the point of acceptance of
diversity in religions, Christians have felt left out and victimized by the propagation of some
views that are presumed not to be coherent with Biblical teachings (Zhang & Weiss, 2022),
which has led to some of their teachings being censored by the public backlash.
In different dimensions, different people have different privileges. Many will often get
unearned privileges as a result of others being likely to take advantage of them, such as religious,
class, and racial privileges, to feel protected. However, all privileged persons must have different
angles when looking at everything to see both sides of the coin (Shen & Truex, 2020).
Otherwise, when the long-lived benefits of the privileged diminish, the privileged become
victims of what they feel and perceive as unfair treatment, which they oppose and criticize.
Social Fragmentation
Social fragmentation, also known as social disintegration, refers to the various divisions
encountered in societies that result in a lack of expected harmony or any form of conformity and
unity of purpose among members of society (Haferkamp & Smelser, 2020). Social fragmentation
may manifest in numerous forms, such as political polarization, ethnic divisions, racial
segregation, and economic inequalities. Such fragmentations lead to a breakdown in social
connections and the emergence of the spirit of hate and mistrust. They may effectively result in a
feeling of alienation among the individual members of the community (Maguire & O’Reilly,
2010). Consequently, this gives rise to discrimination and issues of social unrest in society
coupled with the general reduction in the well-being of the whole people or the community at
large. As a result of safetyism, social fragmentation leads to an acute lack of cohesion and
communal unity of purpose expected among people in society, and it promotes concept creep,

64
unabated tribalism, groupthink, continuous lack of accountability, and a negative and
uncontrolled spirit of inequality of outcome vis a vis the opportunities available to people.
How Social Fragmentation Leads to Concept Creep
Social fragmentation, as understood in contemporary society, is a crucial, complex, and
multifaceted phenomenon that escalates the breakdown of valued social norms, practices, and
principles and disintegrates the relationships between individual members of society. Hedayatifar
et al. (2019) posited that social fragmentation can be experienced in numerous ways, some of
which may encompass divaricated political disparities in ideologies, ineffectively fractured
societies, and a remarkable increase in levels of individualism in society. Social fragmentation is
a tenet of safetyism and social fragility that has experienced much variation and attention in
contemporary society. This is because the importance of safety and social comfort is valued
more than all other considerations, resulting in the idea of concept creep as manifested and
evidenced in society. Bennett and Hacker (2022) asserted that concept creep has manifested itself
in areas such as psychology, philosophy, and law in the sense that notions that were noticeably
clear in meaning and were well-defined have changed to be more ambiguous and allencompassing. Due to safetyism, social fragility affects individuals’ comfort and well-being,
resulting in the increase and erosion of numerous concepts, ultimately resulting in a breakdown
in day-to-day social cohesion.
Allardyce et al. (2005) suggested that social fragmentation and safetyism have
contributed to concept creep by expanding the understanding of the concept and idea of harm. In
the past and as traditionally understood, harm meant physical injury and damage to an
individual’s health and general well-being. However, in coherence with the theory of safetyism
and fragility, harm is now understood as any emotional and psychological challenges and

65
discomforts that a person encounters in life, leading to great sensitivity to possible harm and
developing a tendency to view routine and non-threatening experiences and challenges as
harmful (Henry, 2022). In college campuses, for example, the idea of exclusionary thoughts has
come up to describe and refer to seemingly innocuous statements or utterances and behaviors as
highly harmful and offensive depending on audiences’ race, gender, sexual orientation, religion,
and professed faith (Bennett & Hacker, 2022). While the core aim may not be to result in harm,
the idea of harm has been gradually expanded to enclose all perceived conceivable exclusionary
behaviors or actions, resulting in a society filled with hypersensitivity and uncontrolled fear.
The intricate idea of harm and fragility has also led to a significant proliferation of
content warnings and the consideration for safe spaces where the two are meant to inform, alert,
or caution people about potentially sensitive words or contents (L. G. Spencer & Kulbaga, 2018).
While these measures were put in place and intended to support individuals who had undergone
trauma, the idea has today been extended to confine a broad and more extensive range of
situations, experiences, and even opinions that are likely to influence people’s perspectives and
beliefs. Conceptual expansion or concept creep possesses the potential for deleterious
ramifications extending beyond the scope of moral typecasting. Initially, by extending the
application of concepts denoting abuse, bullying, and trauma to actions and occurrences of lesser
severity and greater definitional clarity—while concurrently introducing subjective elements into
their characterization—concept creep may engender an influx of groundless allegations and legal
proceedings alongside the implementation of excessively stringent and disproportionate
regulatory measures (Cascardi et al., 2014). Furthermore, concept creep engenders a form of
semantic attenuation. Should a concept undergo expansion to encompass less severe phenomena
than previously encapsulated, its prototypical signification gravitates in that direction. For

66
instance, if the concept of trauma were to cease its exclusive reference to profoundly distressing
events falling beyond the ambit of customary human experience and were instead applied to
milder and more prevalent stressors, it would inevitably assume a comparatively benign
connotation (Haslam, 2016). This has given rise to a societal milieu where people seek to avoid
conversations and interactions that are likely to lead to discomfort.
Furthermore, safetyism and over-focus on fragility have led to the prevailing culture of
victimhood. In communities where safety or comfort is given the first consideration, any
observed potential harm and discomfort are viewed as a threat to individuals’ well-being, where
the individuals see themselves as victims of challenges, trauma, pain, and oppression (Armaly &
Enders, 2021). As a culture, victimhood results in the fragmentation of the core aspects of
society, as individuals prioritize their challenges and the various perceived levels of victimhood
instead of looking at collective social cohesion and societal solidarity (Armaly & Enders, 2021).
This initiates a great divisive communal and political atmosphere where individuals may label
their counterparts as oppressors and stipulate for protection from all forms of possible sources of
discomfort, threats, or perceived harm.
In addition, the convoluted meaning of harm and perceived threat has enhanced the
phenomenon of concept creep, which further stimulates social fragmentation (Lindblom, 2022).
In societies where the definition of safetyism, harm, offense, and inequality are intertwined and
made overly sensitive, challenges or experiences such as disagreements with an individual’s
beliefs are viewed as a threat and have, in most cases, resulted in a lack of tolerance for several
different perspectives and absolute bigotry for discomfort or perceived adversity. Instead of
effectively engaging in meaningful debates and conversations, individuals, in most instances,
resort to silencing opposing aspects and views and completely shutting down discussions in the

67
name of keeping safe and embracing protection. Lindblom (2022) confirmed that such a social
climate promotes ideological bubbles where concerned individuals are intrinsically drawn to
opinions and ideas that agree with their perceptions and perspectives, ultimately inhibiting the
development of creativity, critical thinking, assertiveness, and open-mindedness which are vital
for continuity and prosperity in life.
Koops (2021) asserted that concept creep, the over-broadening of definitions of topics
surrounding sensitivity to harm and inequality, has heightened safetyism and social
fragmentation. In an attempt to create a safe and comfortable environment for everybody,
institutions and individuals have imposed strict guidelines and restrictions on various core
aspects of life. Such restrictions result in the loss of individualized touch and responsibility, as
individuals turn to external sources to offer them safety. The resultant environment has
eventually created a culture of fear where individuals look for protection from foreseen
challenges and perceived threats, thus deepening social fragmentation.
In essence, the concept creep phenomenon broadens moral concern in a way that aligns
with a liberal social agenda by defining new kinds of experience as harming and new classes of
people as harmed, and it identifies these people as needful of care and protection (Haslam, 2016).
People avoid involving themselves in risk-taking and activities that enhance individual growth.
Collectively, the prominence given to safety through cultural safetyism enhances societal
concept creep, leading to social fragmentation by emphasizing harm, social intolerance, and
inequality, above all other things. Although conceptual change is inevitable and often wellmotivated, concept creep risks pathologizing everyday experiences and encouraging a sense of
virtuous but impotent victimhood (Haslam, 2016). These have inevitably polarized society, all

68
leading to the breakdown of social values, principles, and norms of individual members of
society.
Tribalism and Groupthink
Safetyism has created a social hotbed for tribalism and groupthink, as individuals seek
out like-minded individuals and reject differing perspectives. According to Lukianoff and Haidt
(2015), one significant result of forming social affiliations based on shared ideologies is that it
gives rise to division and disunity that may significantly result in endless social dissimilarities
among the members of society. People who strongly identify themselves with specific societal
clusters are likely to view those outside their affiliations as others and, therefore, develop
negative and biased prejudgments against them. This dictates animosity and mistrust among
individual group members, resulting in social fragmentation, divisions, and unforeseen violence.
In American society, social division has been majorly fueled by the creation of social affiliations
and group identities based on skin color. A relatable historical example is the renowned White
supremacist unions, which viewed other American racial affiliations as inferior and, therefore,
resulted in emotional threats and discrimination.
As Tse and Tung (2020) contended, the social groups formed with identity and common
ideologies as the unifying factor can readily result in reinforcing beliefs and stereotypes that may
likely encourage discrimination and social fragmentation. In situations where society encourages
relationships only with those who share the same beliefs, way of thinking, and perspectives,
there is a higher likelihood of such societies experiencing an extreme lack of understanding for
others concerning their challenges, weaknesses, and or strengths. American society presents a
salient example where there are heterogeneous social groups, and historically, people from the

69
majority groups developed conceived stereotypical opinions about minority groups and their
situations and challenges.
Lloyd and Hannikainen (2022) observed that social fragmentation that results from the
formation of social groups has harmful and destructive outcomes on unity, cohesion, peace, and
stability. Individuals who only interact and associate with people similar to themselves are likely
not to be challenged because they are not exposed to multifarious viewpoints and perspectives,
and this may result in inefficiency in understanding issues and may likely deter cooperation
among members of society. Lack of cooperation and the spirit of unity of purpose in society is
detrimental to societal operation, people’s well-being, and wholeness and may eventually
compromise any form of social, economic, or political continuance and endurance.
Y. Lee (2019) also pointed out that social groups can result in the formation of
groupthink identified and characterized by the members’ emphasis on unanimity instead of
giving room for critical thinking, open conversations, and discourses that are likely to direct and
point an individual to the suitable course of growth and development in life. As homogenous
affiliations and associations drive group-based opinions that their members readily conform and
agree with, the heterogeneous categories feel socially neglected and may also form their groups
with inherent minority-based topics. The resultant scenario breeds tribalism and groupthink, even
further exacerbating social fragmentation as everyone would only feel comfortable associating
with their respective social groups or categories of interest as either the majority or the minority.
It is possible that the outcome may compromise independent thinking, creativity, or
embracement of dissenting opinions, thus discouraging the development of innovation or
diversity in thinking and operation. In this context, as Wegerif et al. (2017) argued, groupthink
compromises critical thinking and analysis of issues as homogenous group members fail to

70
comprehend the beliefs and overall decisions of divergent groups but maintain an environment of
safety and an unquestioned sense of membership and belonging on themselves. The minority
categories in such a scenario feel segregated, thereby boosting the constant feeling and
continuous practice of social fragmentation.
The societal innate tension manifested in people’s constant pressure to fit in, conform,
and be readily identified by a particular social group has also furthered social disparities and
fragmentation. This is because the urge to conform to the group’s desires may prevent open
conversation where individuals would get room to express their minds and exchange ideas.
Julion et al. (2019) propounded that free interactions and exchanging ideas never exist in
homogenous groupings. In such situations, coupled with the urge to identify socially as a
member of specific groups—mainly for social protection purposes—diversity of viewpoints is
discouraged, thus limiting group members from critically assessing issues and decisions.
Moreover, without any critical assessment of issues or decisions, there is no need for anyone in
the group to take accountability for their thoughts or actions.
Lack of Accountability
Accountability refers to deeds and mechanisms; individuals, communities, media
fraternity, and civil society institutions, among others, can refer to holding members of society
and the political institutions to take responsibility for their actions (Malena et al., 2004). In the
context of social fragmentation, accountability revolves around civic engagement. Lack of
accountability can lead to social disconnect, disruption of unity, and lack of trust, among others.
For example, in public administration, lack of accountability negatively affects society
(Maheshwari, 1983). Lack of accountability in the public sector has resulted in mistrust among
the general population as people lose confidence in their social, political, and public institutions,

71
such as the government. In this case, the proponents and opponents of the government end up in
heated and controversial arguments, which may exacerbate social divisions (Han, 2019). While
trying to be safe from non-accountable public officers, people tend to disregard the rule of law
when they lose confidence in their government, creating an unruly and uncontrollable society full
of social separation and divisions.
Through women’s empowerment, the female gender is overprotected across the world,
thus creating a feeling of exemption among women from being responsible for their actions. This
hinders integration and creates a critical menace of social fragmentation in society (Goetz, 1995).
Conflict sometimes may be a result of mistrust of each other within society. When people
do not trust each other within a societal setting—maybe due to heightened levels of social
toxicity—the offended may relocate to new places, countries, or geographical locations of
interest to keep safe from societal challenges (Fisse, 1995). These are causative agents of social
fragmentation. On the same note, the rapid rise of technology has given rise to too much online
interconnection and disconnections between individuals and communities. Lack of accountability
on what is posted on social media platforms and the internet has disintegrated society into
simpler groups (Land & Aronson, 2020) of critics and supporters.
As a consequence of safetyism, identity politics also stimulates conflicts and social
disintegration. The subgroups are often cohesive within but unaccommodating on other groups;
they sometimes lead to conflict based on contradicting opinions and mistrust (Urquhart et al.,
2018). In the school setting, there is a significant disconnection between students and elite
institutions such as private schools, universities, and public institutions. Vyrostek (2009) argued
that there seems to be a demarcation of students who attend high-end private universities and
public schools. In this context, public schools are deemed for students of lower social status,

72
whereas private ones are for students from first-class families. Since schools should be the best
places for social cohesion among students from diverse cultures and economic backgrounds, this
demarcation creates a platform for division among the students. Those students who feel
marginalized tend to avoid their counterparts because they fear the perceived vast difference in
social status (Erdag, 2017).
Despite the risks inherent in educational oversight, those responsible for managing
distinct levels of education in the United States have often shown a marked lack of
accountability. This has exacerbated the divide between private and public school students,
further entrenching it as a standard disparity. Notably, according to the National Center for
Education Statistics (1997), private school students typically enroll in more advanced courses
than their public high school counterparts and tend to follow a more rigorous academic program
overall. However, it is worth mentioning that these differences may be beginning to narrow,
hinting at possible shifts in educational quality and access across different school types.
Equality of Outcome Versus Opportunity
The concept of equality of opportunity is a phenomenon in which all members of society
mutually benefit from an opportunity. In contrast, equality of outcome, on the other hand, aims
to ensure that the disadvantaged gain more from the opportunities presented (Segall, 2013).
Equality of opportunity allows individuals to work on their progress without restrictions on
working in a particular way, which is unique due to sociocultural factors. On the other hand,
equality of outcome restricts individuals from chasing their dreams and working on themselves
in a particular way (Segall, 2013). The former, therefore, is more welcome and supports cohesion
(Katsikas, 2015), while the latter is seen as biased and divisive and influences social
fragmentation in the community. An example of the tension between equality of opportunity and

73
equality of outcome is evident in the workplace environment (Sharma, 2019), where people
develop interpersonal friction between these two aspects.
Equality of opportunities, for instance, provides an equal platform for competition, such
as in job applications, without focusing on individual traits such as color and sex, hence
promoting cohesion. However, it may bring social fragmentation by attracting unequal results
where those who perform better in fair competition are rewarded (i.e., through job promotion;
Frericks, 2015). This may create a feeling where some people feel shortchanged and valueless in
the organizational or workplace societal setting.
Equality of outcome aims to level the playing ground. More often, equality of outcome is
considered to be based on socioeconomic status and not merit. Equality of outcome may also
create a platform where workers are not rewarded based on their quality of production (Cohen,
2003). Similarly, giving fixed rewards to all employees may reduce workplace morale and the
potential of high-performing staff (Thirusanku & Singh, 2021). This may stifle cordial
relationships among staff members, as evidenced in American workplace settings, deepening
social (and economic) fragmentations. Equality of outcome may promote slow development and
injustice, leading to social fragmentation. For example, leveling the playing field for all members
of society may demotivate those who have better opportunities to perform. Many consider
leveling competitive environments unnatural and unfair, limiting individual prowess (Harrison &
Huchzermeyer, 2003). For rapid social growth and development, many people would prefer
equality of opportunity for social cohesion and integration.
Another place where equality of outcome and equality of opportunity has shown tension
is during college admissions. Some universities and schools are considered elite institutions and
are treated better than others (Schneider et al., 2010). These learning institutions will often

74
receive an exceedingly high number of applications, making it difficult to select candidates based
on the grounds of equality of outcome. Equality of opportunity would be used in such a case, and
social fragmentation would emerge instantaneously due to the potential exclusion of other
students. Consequently, there would be a social division between students who secure
opportunities in elite and highly competitive schools and universities and those in institutions
with lower standards.
In American politics, many cases of inequality are brought about by the concept of
equality of opportunity. When playing politics, wealth distribution and the social status of
individuals are inevitably affected. Individuals in higher social ladders and power tend to get
better platforms and are more highly ranked in society (Fleurbaey, 1995) than their counterparts
from low social classes. This has created a high degree of social fragmentation as intergroup
conflicts gradually extend in such a society. In summary, pursuing equality of opportunity in
American politics often exacerbates social fragmentation and intergroup conflicts, perpetuating
inequalities based on wealth and social status.
Overview of Theoretical and Conceptual Framework of Safetyism
The literature review and conceptual and theoretical frameworks share five functions: (a)
build a foundation, (b) demonstrate how a study advances knowledge, (c) conceptualize the
study, (d) assess research design and instrumentation, and (e) provide a reference point for the
interpretation of findings (Merriam & Simpson, 2000). Safetyism in modern society drives a
culture of identity politics and a desire to protect individuals from emotional harm. As a
consequence of safetyism culture, common-enemy identity politics is based on trying to unite
and mobilize multiple groups to fight against a common enemy (Lukianoff & Haidt, 2018). The
methodology used to explore this study was qualitative research with a grounded theory

75
approach. The dissertation examined the process for related constructs to generate a theory of
understanding surrounding the change over time regarding the advent of safetyism.
As Grant and Osanloo (2014) suggested, a conceptual and theoretical framework selected
for a study should, in its entirety, accentuate the core purpose, aim, objective, and importance of
the dissertation. In this context, for a study to be rendered successful, the researcher must make a
proper selection of the conceptual and theoretical context where the key guiding principles
should be underscored by and aligned with the study’s problem statement and research questions
(Adom et al., 2018). Based on these theoretical assertions, this study used safetyism as the
guiding conceptual framework, as Lukianoff and Haidt (2018) posited. According to this
conceptual framework, the underlying philosophy is that society would emphasize the creation of
safe and comfortable social climates for people, especially the young generation, at the expense
of individual risk-taking and personal freedoms.
In this framework, the determinative theory is that any degree of risk, however small,
should ultimately be eliminated. It is believed that when all levels of the potential emotional risks
are not terminated, there is a higher likelihood of hyper-focusing on possible dangers, creating an
undesirable culture of consistent risk evaluation, assessment, and risk mitigation. Concerning the
younger generations, the underlying theory on safetyism, as a conceptual framework for this
study, is that overemphasis on the safety of children results in counter-productive overprotection
of the children, which further creates in them (the children and young generation) a constant
feeling of fear of failure, controversy, and discomfort.
In the contemporary political arena, safetyism as a conceptual framework is believed to
drive a culture of identity politics, where society’s desire to protect people from psychological
harm has been heightened significantly, as Lukianoff and Haidt (2018) posited. In this context,

76
safetyism is theoretically linked to social polarization. It suggests that safetyism may drive
individuals to align themselves with specific groups that share similar social experiences,
challenges, or identities. This alignment can occur across various dimensions, including race,
where distinctions may be drawn between movements like Black Lives Matter and historical
notions of White supremacy. Similarly, distinctions can arise based on sexual orientation,
exemplified by the LGBTQ+ community or religion, with divisions such as Christianity versus
Islam. This phenomenon highlights how safetyism can contribute to the segmentation of society
into distinct identity groups. Lukianoff and Haidt (2018) added that safetyism, as a conceptual
framework, is intrinsically associated with the constructive creation of safe spaces and eliminates
any possible instances of social segregation or harm based on an individual’s or group’s identity.
In this study, safetyism as a conceptual framework was constructed on two tenets:
political correctness and cognitive distortion. The conceptual framework correlated these two
aspects as the fundamental building blocks of the culture of safetyism in society, specifically
American society. The theoretical context here is that political correctness, which is the careful
selection of language and rhetoric to avoid exclusivity and marginalization in society—and
cognitive distortion, which is defined as one’s mental filters or irrational biases that aggravate
one’s vulnerability to anxiety and depression, instilling a sense and feeling of fear—are
intertwined, and their associations stimulate and motivate safetyism. In simple terms, the study
was constructed on the assumption that when people in a societal setup over-embrace avoidance
of specific words or phrases out of political correctness as a result of excessive anxiety,
vulnerability to harm, and negative, irrational thoughts (cognitive distortion), society
inadvertently develops the culture of safetyism—where emotional safety is overprotected.

77
On the same note, the study used safetyism due to the inherent intertwinement between
political correctness and cognitive distortion to assess the consequential emanation of various
fundamental cultures, including fragility, censorship, and social fragmentation. Safetyism as a
conceptual framework is highly related to these immanent consequential cultures because both
safetyism and the three subtle cultures (fragility, censorship, and social fragmentation) focus on
emotional safety above other things. A qualitative causal model is a framework that identifies
causal relationships using qualitative research methods, integrating a realist approach to
causality. This method is increasingly accepted by both qualitative and quantitative researchers,
facilitating collaborative causal investigations (Maxwell, 2004). The qualitative causal model in
Figure 1 depicts the conceptual framework of safetyism, the supporting constructs, and the
outcomes while further illustrating the support of the rationale and alignment of the study,
aligned with the research questions explored.
Figure 1
Safetyism Qualitative Causal Model

78
The theoretical framework of safetyism, as illustrated above, was appropriate because it
explores the many dimensions of related discourses surrounding fragility, censorship, and social
fragmentation, and it would also help explore language, censorship, conflict avoidance, and
accountability. Given that the rise of safetyism derives from the growth and change in various
social discourses, a qualitative research approach using grounded theory is suitable for this study.
Grounded theory is defined as “the discovery of theory from data, systematically obtained and
analyzed in social research” (Glaser & Strauss, 1967, p. 1). Other challenges have been identified
that are usually overlooked or less emphasized in the grounded theory literature. The lack of
structured design in the original grounded theory makes it difficult to know how to make sense
of data and develop a theory, therefore supporting the notion of using safetyism as a theoretical
approach (Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
Summary
The literature reviewed shows a potential gap in understanding the relationship between
political correctness, cognitive distortion, and safetyism, which has yet to be exhaustively
expounded in most contemporary studies. Most previous studies mainly emphasized the
definitions and the emergence of political correctness and cognitive distortion but not how they
are correlated and lead to safetyism culture in American society. Besides, it has been noted that
there is a need to analyze how the culture of safetyism leads to fragility, social fragmentation,
and a culture of censorship (including their respective supporting constructs and the outcomes as
shown in Figure 1), with an ultimate focus on Gen Z who are the most immediate victims of
these emerging societal social trends.

79
Chapter Three: Methodology
The study explicitly examined the connections among cognitive distortion, political
correctness, the emergence of the safetyism culture in Western society, and the ensuing
consequences. Moreover, the study also emphasized the resultant outcomes of these phenomena,
including aspects such as fragility, censorship, and social fragmentation. To inherently
understand these highly intertwined aspects, I employed anecdotes to gather relevant, suitable
empirical data. To investigate the social phenomenon in question, the anecdotal study used
various artifacts, including case studies, articles, journals, social science reports, and
investigations instead of scientific systematic evaluations. Definitively, anecdotal studies apply
qualitative research designs since the social data evaluated (in anecdotal studies) are in the form
of relatable debates and stories, critics, and responses from the target audience (students,
psychologists, sociologists, philosophers, learning institutions, society at large, etc.) regarding
burning social issues or perspective raised and established by research or a study (Murphy et al.,
1999).
Therefore, the study drew from a wide range of relevant literature encompassing social
psychology, cultural studies, and appropriate aspects of sociopolitical philosophy. Based on the
fact that I underscored that safetyism is a controversial social concept and the ongoing studies
surrounding it are relatively inconclusive, the study applied safetyism as a conceptual framework
coupled with grounded theory as a suitable theoretical framework to broaden the societal
implication of the subject matter and initiate meaningful, constructive discussions and criticisms
on how to mitigate the emerging social issues (surrounding safetyism, political correctness, and
cognitive distortion) moving forward.

80
Overall Methodological Overview
A qualitative research approach was the most appropriate research tool to dissect the
complex social phenomenon of safetyism. Given that the rise of safetyism derives from the
growth and change in various social discourses, a qualitative research approach using grounded
theory is suitable for this study. As Strauss and Corbin (1990) suggested, other challenges are
usually overlooked or less emphasized in grounded theory literature. The lack of structured
design in grounded theory makes it difficult to understand data and develop a theory. As a result,
using safetyism as a theoretical approach was deemed highly desirable for the study.
Safetyism is a multifaceted concept involving various subjective experiences,
perspectives, beliefs, and behaviors, and it uses multiple qualitative research methods. Some
primary qualitative sources used in the study include documents such as books and articles,
podcasts, and other audio-visual artifacts, and electronic database analyses, including
newspapers, which are strongly rated in generating anecdotal evidence related to the conceptual
model of safetyism. Moreover, grounded theory combines deductive and inductive reasoning,
drawing on existing knowledge while remaining open to fresh insights from the data (Berryessa,
2022). This well-rounded approach helps mitigate biases from relying solely on deductive or
inductive methods. By systematically organizing emerging themes and ideas from the data,
grounded theory ensures that the resultant theories are firmly rooted in the data, thereby
enhancing the reliability and credibility of the discoveries (Badruzzaman, 2023). As Charmaz
(2014) suggested, grounded theory can be impartial and used regardless of the researcher’s
philosophical position. Contextualizing safetyism helps reveal and uncover how it (the culture of
safetyism) manifests in different settings.

81
Using a qualitative approach with the dynamic of grounded theory offered numerous
opportunities to explore the evolving social phenomenon through etymology changes, offering a
flexible approach to the study. Classical advocates consider that grounded theory holds a middle
ground between qualitative and quantitative methods (Charmaz, 2014; Strauss & Corbin, 1990).
Secondary descriptive data were collected to capture the societal experiences, beliefs, and
attitudes directly, and the artifacts of analysis varied and were of all aspects and focus areas, as
the intent was to capture the broad theme of writing the social narrative. The study sites varied
depending on the social forum but were primarily online media and documented interpersonal
discourse. Qualitative analysis has urged grounded theorists to develop new theories, let data
guide them, and simultaneously engage in data collection, coding, and analysis (Glaser &
Strauss, 1967). My research contributed to the advancement of understanding contemporary
dimensions within the framework of safetyism theory by expanding upon existing studies and
findings, as there were limited existing theoretical frameworks to rely upon due to the recency of
the concept. Grounded theory grounded explanatory theory in data and provided a theoretical
foothold for effective actions and change initiatives (Simmons, 2011).
Given the nature of this dissertation, it is important to clarify that it did not require
institutional review board (IRB) approval. The research conducted herein did not meet the
criteria for human subject research as IRB guidelines define, as referenced in Appendix B.
Instead, it fell within generalized research readily available in the public domain. One could
argue that the testing of the theory and, thus, the research fits the definition of “science.” The
study encompassed scholarly and journalistic activities and analysis of publicly available data.
Therefore, these activities were considered not human subjects research and did not necessitate
IRB review or approval. It was crucial to adhere to ethical standards and regulatory

82
requirements, and in this case, the absence of human subject involvement exempted this
dissertation from the IRB review process.
Research Questions
Notably, safetyism in modern society drives a culture of identity politics and a desire to
protect individuals from emotional harm (Katarina, 2022). Common-enemy identity politics,
based on trying to unite and mobilize multiple groups to fight against a common enemy, has
become the order of the day with far-reaching sociological, psychological, and philosophical
implications in society (Haller & Hoyer, 2019). Concerning these facts, the study investigated
the influence of cognitive distortion and political correctness on present-day culture and the
implications of the emergence of safetyism. I intrinsically delved into the societal implications of
the rise of safetyism, with a focus on Gen Z and college or university students, concerning
cognitive distortion and political correctness. By examining these concepts through the
conceptual framework of safetyism, the study sought to explore the connections between these
phenomena and further show (based on anecdotal evidence) how safetyism has impacted social
constructs such as fragility, censorship, and social fragmentation to better understand the
challenges they pose and explore ways to strike a balance that fosters both emotional well-being
and intellectual growth in contemporary society. The study, therefore, aimed to address four
main research questions:
1. How are cognitive distortion, safetyism, and political correctness linked?
2. How do cognitive distortion, safetyism, and political correctness link to fragility?
3. How do cognitive distortion, safetyism, and political correctness link to censorship?
4. How do cognitive distortion, safetyism, and political correctness link to social
fragmentation?

83
Research Design
The study applied a new qualitative design through a deconstructive anecdotal approach.
Deconstructive anecdotal design allows the researcher to explore and analyze various subjective
social experiences, stands, and personal narratives to underscore inherent meanings and patterns
of sociological occurrences in societal settings (Gallop, 2002). The anecdotal approach was
highly desirable in qualitative studies, specifically in social and cultural studies, because it
provided a more profound, better comprehension of lived experiences, behaviors, and activities
and how people within society resonated with and made sense of the social climate around them
(Sutton & Austin, 2019). Concerning the study’s innate goal, the deconstructive anecdotal
approach was preferable as it provided a more nuanced analysis and in-depth examination of the
subject matter, emphasizing the societal experiences of cognitive distortion, political correctness,
and the emergence and growth of safetyism. Using deconstructive anecdotes in the study, I
aimed to establish many points. Firstly, anecdotes, as the primary data source, helped uncover
the complexities and nuances presented in the concept of safetyism due to political correctness
and cognitive distortion (Hornikx, 2005). These two concepts, from the reviewed studies of
Campbell and Manning (2018), Rooney (2021), and Irmak et al. (2020), often lack concise and
universally accepted definitive meanings in real life. In other words, previous studies have never
adequately understood the two notions, and their consequences have also not been underpinned
exhaustively by society, including learning institutions, politicians, public speakers, the media,
and society at large. As a result, by applying a deconstructive anecdotal approach, I aimed to
comprehensively understand and portray how these concepts manifest in real-life situations and
how society conceives and resonates with them (Hornikx, 2005). This is especially essential in

84
unraveling the impacts of safetyism, a multifaceted and multidimensional term that is defined,
perceived, and interpreted differently across the constructs of society.
In this research, I combined AI tools with qualitative techniques to conduct a thematic
analysis of digital artifacts. Initially, I developed themes and sub-themes following a grounded
theory approach to systematically examine various cited articles (Bendelin et al., 2011; Degand
et al., 2004). I utilized software like Atlas.ti and applied open coding to define these overarching
themes into more specific sub-sub-themes (Braun & Clarke, 2006; Stone, 2020). Subsequently, I
pinpointed sub-sub-themes using Atlas.ti. I delved deeper into these themes by assigning codes
that encapsulated the essence of each data point. This meticulous process facilitated the
validation of the initially identified themes.
To enrich the analysis, I coded to explore the relationships and connections between subthemes and main themes by reorganizing the segmented data from open coding (Taboada &
Lavid, 2003). This phase enhanced the thematic structure and highlighted the dynamic
interactions among various levels of themes essential for developing a robust conceptual
framework (Naeem et al., 2023; Nowell et al., 2017). Integrating Atlas.ti with qualitative coding
methods, like open and axial coding, significantly improved the analysis. This method led to a
data-focused framework that accurately reflected the information and offered valuable insights
into the subject studied. By merging AI tools with grounded theory techniques, my approach
improved the trustworthiness of the results by supporting both deductive analyses—connecting
theory with real-world data dynamically (Hennink et al., 2016; Naeem et al., 2023; Sampietro et
al., 2022).
Initially, inductive coding allowed themes to surface naturally from the data. As the
analysis advanced, deductive coding integrated these themes with the established framework,

85
emphasizing their importance and relevance to the analyzed data. Keywords were vital in
shaping these themes, serving as points around which broader patterns and ideas were identified
and grouped. This thorough analytical approach combined both deductive methods to ensure a
profound understanding of the data and effectively address the research questions. The
interpretation went beyond categories to uncover abstract patterns, trends, or connections that
yielded valuable insights into the subject under scrutiny. Incorporating these approaches in this
study gave me an intricate comprehension of the underlying themes in large datasets, as Naeem
et al. (2023) highlighted. Given the hypothesized themes, the anecdotal research using grounded
theory allowed the coding process of both open and AI processes to reinforce the suggested
themes further and support the conceptual framework of safetyism.
I used a more confirmatory approach to understanding the connections between cognitive
distortion, political correctness, and safetyism by applying retrospective document analysis of
books, articles, electronic databases, podcasts, and other relevant artifacts. Retrospective
document analysis enables researchers to overcome potential biases, preconceptions, irrational
notions, or perceived hypotheses on a subject matter, providing a broader ground for analysis,
interpretation, and comprehension of social data in a more detailed, open, and reflective manner
(Bowen, 2009). This is crucial in multidisciplinary concepts such as cognitive distortion and
political correctness, which are highly affected and impacted by many factors, including cultural
and societal norms, individual and socially constructed beliefs, and other pertinent social
pressures from society. Using retrospective document analysis, researchers get ideal grounds to
uncover emerging and unexpected insights and new perspectives instead of emphasizing
confirmation or disapproval of an existing hypothesis, norm, or culture (Suri, 2011).

86
Credibility and Trustworthiness
I was the sole researcher responsible for collecting and conducting the research in this
dissertation. Because the study explored both contemporary phenomena and historical theories,
my approach involved seeking unbiased and universally understandable articles for review. It is
crucial to search for impartial and easily comprehensible articles for evaluation to uphold
credibility and trustworthiness, as Parry (1998) suggested. A study by Wasuja et al. (2012)
further reinforced this idea, explaining that grounded theory does not require a literature review
but emphasizes the significance of examining available data to deepen comprehension. This
concept aligns with the belief that researchers must possess a perspective to identify pertinent
information and extract important categories when analyzing data. By adopting this approach,
researchers can ensure that their work is grounded in a comprehensive understanding of existing
knowledge, thereby strengthening the reliability and trustworthiness of their research efforts.
While defining accuracy within a social construct can be challenging, the goal was to
consistently examine and verify ideas and content within my social discourse. Fortunately, this
discourse is extensive and varied, encompassing my doctoral committee, global organization
employees, professional colleagues within my accessible network, and fellow researchers in the
OCL program. Prioritizing credibility and trustworthiness in this research involved implementing
strategies that enhanced data accuracy and faithfully captured the data sources’ voices and
perspectives, thereby minimizing potential researcher bias (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). I
dedicated considerable time to one-on-one discussions with professionals across various
disciplines, including law, education, business, and research. This effort aimed to solidify the
research foundation, mitigate biases, and prioritize the accuracy and genuine meaning inherent in
the data. I utilized reflection and peer review to safeguard against the potential introduction of

87
bias into data analysis or interpretation of results due to the investigator’s positionality and
worldview (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The substantial criteria being studied were essential and
affected modern society. Credibility and accuracy were crucial when researching such a topic
and identifying the outcomes. The significant criteria under examination held paramount
importance in our modern society, emphasizing the critical need for credibility and accuracy in
researching this topic to identify meaningful outcomes.
Limitations and Delimitations
It was important to note that a deconstructive anecdotal, qualitative approach reinforced
with retrospective document analysis had some inevitable but tenable subtle challenges, which
could also mirror the research conducted by Lukianoff and Haidt (2018). Here, the duo critically
analyzed multifaceted data from various spectra of life, including sociological, academic,
psychological, and philosophical spheres. The key limitation of deconstructive anecdotal,
qualitative approach and retrospective document analysis to create anecdotal evidence is limited
generalizability (Hoeken & Hustinx, 2009). Anecdotal evidence is based on personal experiences
and opinions, rendering it difficult to make overall generalizations to an entire larger, targeted
population as the sample may not represent the whole population, which were Gen Z university
students and contemporary parents in this case. Moreover, as Freling et al. (2020) suggested,
there is a higher possibility of biases, however small, as the use of anecdotes is subjective and
relies on individual stories and experiences, where the researcher’s perception may be inaccurate,
leading to distorted, inconclusive, and inaccurate delineation of the phenomenon studied.
Despite the above-explained limitations of using a deconstructive anecdotal, qualitative
approach reinforced with retrospective document analysis, the approach and design remain
desirable for sociological and psychological studies, rendering it crucial for this research. I

88
acknowledged the challenges and borrowed many techniques from Lukianoff and Haidt’s (2018)
publication to mitigate any potential biases and limited generalizability that could emerge during
the social data analysis and interpretation phase. Lukianoff and Haidt used empirical data
gathered through surveys and interviews conducted on the target populations of university
students, institutional administrators, and parents, emphasizing trigger warnings, anxiety,
microaggression, freedom of speech, safe space, and mental health of the population, with focus
on the emergence and growth of safetyism as a result of political correctness and cognitive
distortion.
This study employs a comprehensive critical analysis of emerging discussions and
debates across a range of media, including articles, podcasts, magazines, newspapers, and, more
recently, books, with a particular focus on the period following the rise of safetyism. Chapter
Five will specifically address analyses of artifacts from the time since the publication of The
Coddling of the American Mind by Lukianoff and Haidt in 2018. Echoing the approach of
Lukianoff and Haidt, this research extensively utilizes secondary data from journals and peerreviewed articles to enhance its primary findings. The goal was to provide a nuanced and indepth exploration of the subject matter, contributing to a richer understanding of the cultural and
intellectual currents shaping contemporary society. Moreover, this exploration sheds light on
how overprotection is detrimental to university students. While safetyism’s influence extends
beyond the university campus, its implications on higher education highlight a concerning trend
examined in later sections of this dissertation.

89
Timeline of Research
Table 1 outlines the timeframes covered by the research articles under consideration.
Moreover, it utilizes the organizational framework introduced in the subsequent chapter to
present and structure the findings of the studies examined.
Table 1
Safetyism Model, Timeframes: Defined
Year span Themes
1960–1990 Political correctness and cognitive distortion
2008–2015 Rise of safetyism
2016–2019 Political correctness and censorship
2020–current Fragility, censorship, and social fragmentation

90
Chapter Five will delve into the viewpoints and beliefs of postmodernism that surfaced
post-2019. This examination corresponds with the release timing of Lukianoff and Haidt’s book,
The Coddling of the American Mind. The chapter aims to clarify the intricate underlying themes
from the study, offering a more profound insight into the changes in postmodern ideology at that
time.
Chapter Five will offer an exploratory lens into the postmodernism views and tenets that
surfaced post-2019, coinciding with the publication of Lukianoff and Haidt’s book revealing
sub-sub themes derived from the research.
Research Setting, Theoretical Approach, and Rationale
This study’s research setting was constructed on a sociological context, where the area of
focus was the social phenomenon regarding the rise and growth of the culture of safetyism due to
the emergence of political correctness and cognitive distortion in society. I solely utilized the
renowned grounded theory (GT) to develop the study’s conceptual perspective, which led to the
formulation of a new innovative conceptual framework called the framework of safetyism.
Descriptively, GT is a qualitative technique founded by Barney Glaser and Anselm Strauss in
1960 that allows social science researchers to design and formulate new effective conceptual or
theoretical frameworks (Chun Tie et al., 2019) as a result of comprehensive analyses of the
provided sociological and psychological data, be it secondary data or primary data (Niasse,
2023). In simple terms, the founders of GT assert that the approach combines tools and
qualitative techniques to develop and generate tenable theories and concepts from data.
Grounded theory is constructed on five major tenets. Firstly, it allows sociological,
psychological, and philosophical researchers to build theories. Real-time observation, analysis,
and real-world data interpretation generate and guide the theories. The tenet of theory-building

91
under the GT technique stresses the direct derivation of social science theories from the
researcher’s observations and experiences rather than being dependent on the existing, and
possibly biased and inconclusive, assumptions and perceptions (Glaser & Strauss, 2017), thereby
providing a wider lens for grounded and evidence-based slant to theory-creation. Secondly, GT
uses mixed data, where, in the case of this study, it included secondary data from various
sources, including articles, podcasts, journals, magazines, newspapers, and books. Using such
wide ranges of secondary data provides the researcher with a broader understanding of the
subject matter, thereby ensuring that the conclusions are evidence-based and not theoreticalbased (Glaser, 1999).
The third tenet of GT in social science research is that it provides room for inductive and
deductive reasoning. Through inductive reasoning, researchers can gather intended observations
and use the findings to create detailed and conclusive or practical hypotheses and concepts
(Charmaz, 2014). Fourthly, GT allows for the simultaneous collection and analysis of data for a
social science study, which ensures that the study remains within its goals and intended
objectives. Researchers use GT to collect the targeted secondary data (books, articles, journals,
podcasts, magazines, etc.) and analyze them simultaneously, thereby saving time (Corbin &
Strauss, 1990). This tenet also explains how GT simultaneously creates theories and concepts
from the data rather than beginning with preconceived contentions and hypotheses, making GT
suitable for research on intertwined, dynamic, and complex social processes such as safetyism,
cognitive distortion, and political correctness. Lastly, GT allows for a detailed conceptualization
of a subject matter. As Judith (2008) contended, by incorporating systematic data and iterative
techniques where the subject matter or methodology is adapted throughout the research using

92
anecdotes, GT allows for a comprehensive conceptualization of an intertwined topic, giving a
more profound and subtler understanding of it.
The Researcher
As the principal investigator of this study, it was imperative to transparently disclose my
positionality to elucidate and acknowledge the contextual framework of the research. I was a
human resources director within a prominent global industrial organization. This role allowed me
to view the world and the research through an intricate lens. The acquisition of genuine
knowledge is best conceived as the product of an epistemological framework that is nuanced and
shaped by the amalgamation of sociopolitical and historical dynamics as encapsulated by lived
experiences (Douglas & Nganga, 2015). My educational background encompassed an
undergraduate degree in human resources and a master’s in training and development. Moreover,
my extensive tenure in human resources has endowed me with invaluable insights into intraorganizational dynamics and broader societal discourses. This empowerment is accentuated by
recognizing that individuals possess distinctive epistemic entitlements that others may not
readily contest (Takács, 2003).
To address potential biases stemming from my academic and professional background, I
was dedicated to subjecting this research to rigorous scrutiny and valued the constructive input of
peers in assessing its rigor and validity. Specifically, my educational background may have
inclined me toward situations requiring thorough examination and consensus, potentially
overlooking perspectives that did not necessitate such depth of analysis. To counteract this, I
implemented cross-checks and flagged any potential biases during the review process, enabling
me to reevaluate with a fresh perspective or seek peer input. Drawing from my experience in
human resources, my adeptness in human interaction, follow-up, and social discourse may have

93
inadvertently influenced my approach. To counterbalance this, I engaged in peer mediation and
evaluated my expectations through the perspective of those outside the human resources
profession. Despite these efforts to mitigate bias, it is essential to acknowledge that eliminating
bias is not entirely feasible; therefore, my biases, reflecting a white-collar leadership-oriented
employer perspective, may still have influenced the research outcomes.
My commitment to rigorous self-evaluation, peer collaboration, and a proactive approach
to identifying and mitigating biases underscored my dedication to conducting objective and
comprehensive research to pursue scholarly excellence.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The study adhered to strict inclusion criteria to ensure the relevance and rigor of the
research. The primary focus was on utilizing secondary sources that directly related to the
conceptual framework of safetyism. Included sources encompassed peer-reviewed journal
articles, books, newspapers, magazines, podcasts, and other media publications that addressed
themes such as cognitive distortions, political correctness, fragility, censorship, and social
fragmentation. Document analysis was conducted on these sources to derive comprehensive
insights.
Equally stringent exclusion criteria were applied. Sources that lacked anecdotal evidence
or correlating narrative accounts were omitted. Additionally, materials not directly addressing
safetyism or its related sub-themes were excluded to maintain a clear and focused analysis. This
rigorous approach ensured that the study’s findings were grounded in robust and relevant
literature, providing a solid foundation for exploring the impacts of safetyism on societal
dynamics.

94
Inclusion Criteria:
1. Research directly related to the conceptual framework of safetyism.
2. Artifacts, including peer-reviewed journal articles, books, newspapers, magazines,
podcasts, and other media publications.
3. Studies conducted within the focused timeframe of 2008 to the present.
Exclusion Criteria:
1. Sources that lack anecdotal evidence or substantial narrative accounts.
2. Materials primarily based on opinion without correlating anecdotal evidence.
3. Documents that do not directly address safetyism or its related sub-themes, such as
cognitive distortions, political correctness, fragility, censorship, and social
fragmentation.
4. Research conducted outside the focused timeframe of 2008 to the present.
5. Publications from non-credible or non-reputable media outlets.
Validity and Significance of Studying Social Processes
Pragmatically, studying social processes in the modern world has been essential in
understanding the contemporary dynamic culture. Such studies allow researchers to explore
intrinsic societal beliefs and compare modern beliefs with traditional norms and practices
(Thomas Edison State University & Sanchez, 2022). Studying social processes has enabled
people or members of society to understand how values and cultural attitudes shaped and
reformed the behavioral patterns of individuals in a specific cultural setting (Little & McGivern,
2014). For instance, in this study, the audience was assumed to have understood the connection
between cognitive distortion and political correctness and how the two catalyzed the emergence
and growth of the societal culture of safetyism, with an emphasis on the young generation,

95
namely Gen Z. The culture of safetyism had been exceptionally prevalent in the sphere of social
media and the spectrum of academics and education (Warner, 2018). This culture notably
influenced how society thought, communicated, and interacted with others, which consequently
reformed the overall cultural landscape of society.
By investigating the social process of safetyism, this study presents a better
understanding of the underlying factors behind this phenomenon and its consequential social
impacts. The study’s target audience comprehended and correlated how individual practices form
societal beliefs and cultural values, perpetuated in a societal setting, and their effect on habitual
patterns and group behavior. In this context, the audience was assumed to understand how
fragility, censorship, and social fragmentation were interrelated in catalyzing the culture of
safetyism. This was based on the fact that people did not extensively understand some
assumptions, such as the study’s assumption that when people in a societal setup over-embraced
avoidance of specific words or phrases—political correctness—as a result of cognitive
distortions such as excessive anxiety, vulnerability to harm, and negative, irrational thoughts,
society inadvertently developed the culture of safetyism, where emotional safety was
overprotected (Rudaz et al., 2017). I hoped that through the study, the audience would gain
deeper insights into these social facets, and the resultant social environment might be in a state of
equilibrium where the audience could easily strike a constructive balance between fostering
psychological well-being and upholding the principles of intellectual freedom, diversity of
thought, and open dialogue.
Expanding on the insights established earlier, Chapter Four primarily consists of
quantitative surveys presented in tables and figures from highly regarded sources. These helped
create detailed sub-sub themes using the research approach mentioned earlier. After careful

96
reflection and analysis of the data and its themes, Chapter Five will present my findings, which,
although supported by substantial data collection, are anecdotal.

97
Chapter Four: Findings
Chapter Four explores the progressive emergence of safety-oriented cultural norms in
Western society, shaped by various societal factors, including cognitive biases and adherence to
political correctness. Specifically, the study examined the connections among cognitive
distortion, political correctness, and the rise of safetyism culture, emphasizing the results of these
phenomena, such as fragility, censorship, and social fragmentation. The chapter is structured into
two main parts to ensure clarity and coherence.
Part 1 provides chronological periods, setting the stage for the inquiry, drawing insights
from the safetyism path model introduced in Chapter Three, and exploring how societal
perspectives on safety and political correctness evolved between 2008 and early 2024. This
timeframe consists of three phases: the initial period spanning 2008 to 2015, characterized by a
rise in political correctness and a strong focus on safetyism; the subsequent years from 2016 to
2019, marked by escalating political divides; and the era from 2020 to early 2024 which saw
significant global shifts in societal norms and political discourse. Each phase is scrutinized to
grasp the changing values and conversations tracing back to the historical progression from 1960
to 1990’s focus on political correctness, through the 1990 to 2008 period’s burgeoning political
correctness and safetyism, to the present day’s themes of fragility, censorship, and social
fragmentation.
Part 2 delves into the specific research questions addressed in the study. The inclusion
criteria for the study were stringent, focusing on studies with clearly defined research objectives
and relevant questions. Specifically, articles within the scope and domain were analyzed using
the research methods mentioned previously in Chapter Three using a GT approach. Chapter Four
further expands upon these insights through quantitative surveys, presented in tables and figures

98
from highly regarded sources. These surveys helped establish detailed sub-sub themes,
contributing to the robust foundation of the research findings. The journal’s originality and the
integrity of the sources were also key considerations. All materials used in this investigation—
including papers, articles, and electronic sources—must be openly accessible, authored in
English, and, as far as possible, free from bias. These sources were selected based on their use of
adequate sampling techniques, ensuring the reliability of the research findings.
Part 1: Chronological Timespan
The historical analysis in Chapter Four commences by delineating the discoveries, which
are categorized into three critical periods: from 2008 to 2015, followed by the years 2016 to
2019, and culminating in the era from 2020 to the early months of 2024. This chronological
breakdown provides a comprehensive understanding of the evolutionary trajectory under
examination, facilitating a nuanced exploration of trends and shifts over time.
New Political Landscape Since President Obama’s Administration: 2008–2015
During this era, various dimensions of President Barack Obama’s administration were
explored, shedding further light on themes such as tribalism, political correctness, and the
emergence of safety-oriented ideologies. Table 2 presents a framework for cataloging research,
featuring excerpts from select artifacts. These artifacts, integral to the supporting research in this
section, offer insightful contributions to the research on the rise of safetyism during President
Obama’s administration, specifically from 2008 to 2015. They are extensively used throughout
to substantiate the ensuing exploration of these topics.

99
Table 2
Framework for Cataloging Research
Author Title of article Type of artifact
Barthel and Mitchell
(2017)
Americans’ Attitudes About the News Media
Deeply Divided Along Partisan Lines
Journal article
Celniker et al. (2022) Correlates of “Coddling:” Cognitive Distortions
Predict Safetyism
Journal article
Chung and Shakra (2020) The Association Between Trauma Centrality
and Posttraumatic Stress Among Syrian
Refugees: The Impact of Cognitive
Distortions and Trauma-Coping Self-Efficacy
Journal article
Harper et al. (2022) Do Concepts Creep to the Left and the Right?
Evidence for Ideologically Salient Concept
Breadth Judgments Across the Political
Spectrum
Journal article
Packer and Bavel (2022) The Myth of Tribalism Op-ed article
Shapiro and Fogel (2019) Tribalism in the Trump Era: The Societal
Resilience Index
Journal article
Southern Poverty Law
Center (2015)
The Year in Hate and Extremism Journal article
Tribalism
Tribalism, defined as in-group favoritism enhanced by an individual’s strong loyalty,
support, and sense of identity toward a specific societal group or community of their interest
(Packer & Bavel, 2022), has transformed throughout the history of the United States. In
psychology, tribalism often orchestrates community polarization, leading to inherent divisive
attitudes between people calling or identifying as members of their groups of interest and those
outside these (Packer & Bavel, 2022). This phenomenon has been observed in the American
political arena, where society tends to support and affiliate itself with specific political parties.
Tribalism creates a personal sense of social attachment, where those aligned with their parties of
interest view those from other political parties as enemies instead of viewing them as fellow

100
American citizens who also have social rights and political freedoms. Such occurrences show
how people construct and practice the notion of the war between us and them, intensifying the
societal tribal mentality that became deeply rooted in the 2008–2015 American political
landscape.
Numerous studies and data collected during President Obama’s administration have
found that tribalism has grown across American political society. As depicted in Figure 2, a 2018
survey by the Pew Research Center on the political landscape of the United States concerning
tribalism revealed that 37% of respondents identified as independents, 33% as Democrats, and
approximately 26% as Republicans. The survey analysis depicted in the graph indicates a notable
shift in the political inclinations of independent voters. When considering these voters’ partisan
leanings, 50% leaned toward the Democrat side, while 42% leaned toward or identified as
Republicans. This demonstrates a significant increase in partisan alignment among independents
compared to earlier decades, such as the 1990s and early 2000s. Notably, these results imply that
there has been a gradually growing divide between the general public along party lines resulting
from a sense of tribal political loyalty to one’s political affiliations and ideologies.

101
Figure 2
Party Affiliation and Loyalty Between Democrats and Republicans Between 1994–2017
Note. Adapted from The Tone of Political Debate, Compromise With Political Opponents by
Pew Research Center, 2018. (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/04/26/8-the-tone-ofpolitical-debate-compromise-with-political-opponents/). Copyright 2018 by Pew Research
Center.

102
Similarly, an empirical study by the Southern Poverty Law Center (2015) found that
extremism flourished significantly within the two significant (tribal) political divides:
Republicans and Democrats (Figure 3). Social and political extremism grew twofold in various
states, including Texas, California, Florida, Tennessee, and Pennsylvania.
Figure 3
Top Five States for Hate Groups in 2015
Note. Adapted from The Year in Hate and Extremism by Southern Poverty Law Center, 2015.
(https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2016/year-hate-and-extremism).
Copyright 2015 by Southern Poverty Law Center.

103
Safetyism refers to prioritizing safety to a degree that may impede personal growth and
resilience, and its interplay with cognitive distortions is multifaceted. Cognitive distortions are
irrational, exaggerated thought patterns that can foster negative emotions and behaviors.
Fazakas-DeHoog et al. (2017) proposed a reciprocal relationship between cognitive deficits and
cognitive distortions, indicating that increases in one can be associated with increases in the
other. This suggests that individuals who exhibit behaviors associated with safetyism, often
driven by cognitive distortions, may further entrench these distortions, creating a cycle of
escalating safety concerns and skewed thinking.
Additionally, Celniker et al. (2022) examined how cognitive distortions can predict
safety-inspired beliefs. These include the notions that a particular language can inflict harm and
that trigger warnings are necessary. The emergence of radical groups can often be attributed to
an intensified desire to protect ideological beliefs, which cognitive distortions can influence.
These distortions magnify perceived threats beyond reality, leading individuals to view
sociocultural and political changes as severe dangers (Rydgren, 2007). This fear of perceived
threats can drive individuals toward extreme ideologies that promise to uphold their cherished
traditions and principles. The concept of safetyism amplifies these cognitive distortions,
justifying radical actions as necessary for protection (Rydgren, 2007).
Radicalization is a complex process that involves a growing readiness to support
significant societal changes that challenge the existing order (Marwick et al., 2022). Research on
the impact of radical ideologies on political tolerance and support for freedom of speech has
found that exposure to the normalization of radical outgroup ideologies can influence
individuals’ concerns about their party’s image (Orazani et al., 2020). The relationship between
nationalistic attitudes and voting for radical right-wing parties highlights how nationalist

104
ideologies can influence voting behavior (Lubbers & Coenders, 2017). The collective insights
from these studies underscore the complex layers of radicalization, shaped by interplaying
factors of cognitive distortions, safetyism, and the interconnections between ideologies and
political climates. The interwoven dynamics of cognitive distortion and safetyism, as evidenced
by the proliferation of patriotic groups depicted in Figure 4, stress the need for a detailed
understanding of how such groups gain traction and assert their influence. Recognizing these
factors’ reciprocity is crucial for formulating approaches to reducing the divisive impacts these
groups may have on societal harmony and political conversations.

105
Figure 4
The Growth of “Patriotic” Groups in the United States From 1997–2015
Note. Adapted from The Year in Hate and Extremism by Southern Poverty Law Center, 2015.
(https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2016/year-hate-and-extremism).
Copyright 2015 by Southern Poverty Law Center.
Moreover, cognitive distortions have correlations with trauma centrality, posttraumatic
stress (Chung & Shakra, 2020), and interpersonal communication during crises like the COVID19 pandemic (Aydin & Malak Akgün, 2021). In radical groups, these distortions can
significantly shape members’ perceptions and actions. For instance, they are linked to child
abuse (Browne & Winkelman, 2007) and have been found to mediate the impact of trauma on
distress outcomes, suggesting they can amplify psychological pain in traumatic contexts (Chung
& Shakra, 2020). Additionally, associations between cognitive distortions and aggressive

106
behavior (Smeijers et al., 2018) could explain a propensity for violence within radical groups.
These connections imply that cognitive distortions can facilitate the radicalization process,
promoting a skewed reality that sustains extremist participation. Southern Poverty Law Center
(2015) recorded that American radical right groups grew from 784 in 2014 to 892 in 2015, a 14%
increase. Figure 5 draws on data from the Southern Poverty Law Center, illustrating that the
emergence of hate groups can be linked to the public’s intense identification and affiliation with
particular political parties, such as Republicans or Democrats. This deepening of ideological
divides has contributed to the rise of extremism, a byproduct of increased tribalism.
Figure 5
Hate Groups in 1999–2015
Note. Adapted from The Year in Hate and Extremism by Southern Poverty Law Center, 2015.
(https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2016/year-hate-and-extremism).
Copyright 2015 by Southern Poverty Law Center.

107
The implications of such consequences of tribalism (extremism) on safetyism and
cognitive distortion are also similar, practical, and testable. An empirical study by Sing (2022)
on N = 513 suggests that social identification as a result of political partisanship inculcates an
inevitable outstanding level of in-group favoritism (tribalism) among society members, creating
undesirable outgroup derogation in people’s attitudes and perceptions. The findings reported that
people who strongly identify with a group (Republican or Democrat) have more intense
emotional feelings compared to less committed individuals, especially in response to emotional
threats. The resultant social climate increased the people’s cognitive distortion and fostered a
culture of safetyism. Sing’s results were that the higher the commitment to a political group, the
higher the levels of cognitive distortions, confirmation bias, and emotional reasoning, and the
greater the intensity of the culture of safety and tribalism. This is due to strong allegiance and
social or political identification with a specific political faction or group.
Political Correctness
In the contemporary world, the emphasis on adopting and implementing the concept of
political correctness globally, especially in Western society, has grown alongside identity politics
and social justice unions and movements. The enforcers of such movements have prioritized the
implementation of political correctness in speech in societal settings, including academia/school
settings, the media, and politics. In the United States, especially during President Obama’s
administration, the term “political correctness” was frequently and overly debated and used, as
society prioritized conformity in speech to prevent heated liberal or radical opinions or phrases
which would otherwise be perceived to marginalize, discriminate, or insult a minority group or
community.

108
Data from several surveys conducted by various reliable organizations, including the Pew
Research Center, Cato Institute, National Opinion Research Center, and Gallup Organization,
provide insightful information about the prevalence of political correctness during Obama’s
administration. According to a Pew Research Center survey conducted between 2008 and 2015,
which assessed the attitudes of 4,602 adult Americans during a period when language became a
significant political issue, a majority of respondents (59%) reported that “many people are often
and regularly offended these days over language(s) used by others” (Fingerhut, 2016, para. 1).
Similarly, as presented in Figure 6, 39% of respondents indicated that the public should exercise
greater caution and awareness regarding the language and terms used when addressing others.
This is advocated to prevent offense and to avoid discriminating against or insulting individuals
from diverse or minority/marginalized communities.

109
Figure 6
Partisan Variations Over Whether Too Many Americans Are “Easily Offended” by Language
2008–2015
Note. Adapted from In “Political Correctness” Debate, Most Americans Think Too Many People
Are Easily Offended by H. Fingerhut, 2016. Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/07/20/in-political-correctness-debate-mostamericans-think-too-many-people-are-easily-offended/). Copyright 2016 by Pew Research
Center.
When the data were analyzed along political divides, the findings by the Pew Research
Center (Fingerhut, 2016) showed that 78% of the Republican respondents agreed that a
considerable number of Americans are easily offended. In comparison, only 21% of recorded

110
Republicans should be more concerned with language to avoid offensive speeches and rhetoric.
Among Democrats, approximately 61% of respondents agreed that people should be keener not
to offend others, compared to 37% who reported that people were easily offended by language.
The survey also established that most respondents believed that political correctness had gone
too far, with an infinitesimal category of them citing that political correctness is essential in
changing society for a better future. Table 3 suggests that between 2008 and 2015, the American
public was aware of and concerned about the possible unintended consequences of political
correctness on society.

111
Table 3
Partisan Opinions Over the Implications of Political Correctness in the United States Between
2008 and 2015
National adults
In general, are you in favor of the United States becoming
more politically correct and like when people are being
more sensitive in their comments about others or are you
against the country becoming more politically correct and
upset that there are too many things people can’t say
anymore?
Favor Against Vol. neither/mixed Unsure
Row % Row % Row % Row %
December 2018 36% 52% 7% 5%
Fox News/Opinion Dynamics
Poll October 2010*
28% 56% 10% 7%
Note. Marist Poll National Adults. *Fox News/Opinion Dynamics Poll October 2010. Adapted
from Americans Don’t Want to Be Politically Correct by NPR and Marist Institute for Public
Opinion, 2018. (https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/NPR_PBSNewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_Civility_1812051719.pdf#page=3) and NPR
Poll: Americans Don’t Want to Be Politically Correct. Tote Bag, Anyone? by D. Baron, 2018,
December 23 [Blog post]. University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
(https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/731854). Copyright 2018 by University of Illinois UrbanaChampaign.
Another poll conducted by the NPR-Marist Institute on 1,075 Americans concerning the
degree and level of political correctness between 2008 and 2015 showed that most Americans
were against the country being more politically correct. According to the findings portrayed in
Table 3, 52% of the participants reported that the United States should not embrace the concept

112
of political correctness, as about 36% thought and suggested that the country’s social, economic,
and political well-being necessitates political correctness.
These findings by the NPR-Marist Institute suggest that as of 2008 through 2015, most
Americans were aware of political correctness and were well informed about the possible
challenges it could pose to society. Between 2010 and 2018, there was a modest upward shift in
the favorability toward political correctness. This change suggests that attitudes began to
improve slightly during this period despite initial perceptions of political correctness as
unfavorable—mainly due to beliefs that it suppresses truth and hides necessary societal facts.
According to a free speech and tolerance survey conducted by the Cato Institute in 2017
across 2,547 adult Americans, the respondents mutually recorded that political correctness had
silenced essential topics and meaningful discussions that a viable society needs to have.
According to a survey cited by Ekins in 2017, a majority, 71%, of respondents felt that political
correctness has stifled significant discussions within American society. Conversely, 28%
believed that political correctness had offered considerable advantages, primarily in preventing
people from offending others. Similarly, 58% of the respondents believed that the political
climate (between 2008 and 2017) brought about by the overemphasis on political correctness
prevents people from saying things they believe people might find utterly offensive, preventing
them from enjoying freedom of speech. Consequently, people self-censor language and keep
political thoughts and social beliefs to themselves (Figure 7).

113
Figure 7
People Are Most Likely to Self-Censor Due to the Political Climate Created by Political
Correctness Between 2008 and 2015
Note. Adapted from The State of Free Speech and Tolerance in America by E. Ekins, 2017. Cato
Institute. (https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/state-free-speech-tolerance-america#overview).
Copyright 2017 by Cato Institute.
Data from the Cato Institute displays a political gradient in responses to a specific issue,
with agreement decreasing and disagreement increasing as political ideology shifts from strongly
liberal to strongly conservative. Figure 7 reveals a significant association between political
leanings and views on this matter, with 69% of strong liberals agreeing, contrasted with 76% of
strong conservatives disagreeing.
Collectively, these polls (by Cato Institute, Pew Research Center, and NPR-Marist
Institute) posit that the concept of political correctness was renowned in the United States during
President Obama’s era and that it was extensively and broadly contested among Americans,
implying that it was not a new thing to them. Analytically, the data shows an elevated level of

114
concern about America’s political climate during the 2008–2015 era, emphasizing the degree of
dissatisfaction with political correctness. Many Americans perceived this concept as a significant
threat, a silencer to free expression, and an escalator of individual self-censorship and
impaired/influenced behavior/actions. Similarly, the results show a great division along political
lines concerning political correctness. Republicans seemed to manifest higher degrees of concern
and dissatisfaction with political correctness than Democrats.
Safetyism Begins
Safetyism became increasingly popular in U.S. political and social discourses during
President Obama’s administration. Ideally, the ideology of safetyism, characterized by an
overemphasis on protecting people from potential emotional threats and physical harm, gained
massive prominence between 2008 and 2015, when Americans started being cautious and
concerned about their overall social, political, and psychological well-being. Numerous surveys,
polls, and empirical research from 2008 to 2016 have provided a deeper understanding of the
prevalence and evolution of safetyism throughout President Obama’s tenure. The collected
studies detail the ascent of safetyism and its impact on American life, analyzing its effect on
speech, law, education, and work, as well as public reactions to it, showing varying degrees of
acceptance or opposition among different groups and political views. The period’s substantial
data collection efforts have thus mapped the trajectory of safetyism from a relatively marginal
concern to a central topic in the American cultural and political landscape, highlighting its
implications for policymaking, social behavior, and interpersonal interactions. Various facets of
safetyism, such as gun control laws, anti-bullying policies aligned with sexual orientations, and
parenting practices, help understand how the culture of safetyism began in the Western world.

115
Gun Control. According to extensive polls by the Pew Research Center (2013) among
1,504 adult Americans, safety(ism) is found to be a crucial concern among the majority of
respondents who did not own personal guns. Referencing Table 4, nearly half of gun owners
stated that the primary reason for owning guns is for physical and emotional safety and
protection. Analytically, there is a marked shift from the early 1990s to the period between 2008
and 2016, with a greater number of Americans now citing safety and protection as their central
motive for gun ownership.
Table 4
Reasons Why Americans Own Guns: 2013 Survey
Why do you own a gun?
Aug 1999 Feb 2013 Change
Among gun owners % %
Protection 26 48 +22
Hunting 49 32 –17
Target/sport shooting 8 7 –1
Constitutional right/2nd Amendment 4 2 –2
Collects guns/hobby 4 2 –2
Other 10 7 –3
Don’t know – 1
100 100
Note. Pew Research Center Feb 13–18, 2023. Based on those who personally own a gun. August
1999 data from ABC News/Washington Post. Figures may not add to 100% because of rounding.
Adapted from Section 1: Views of stricter gun laws by Pew Research Center, 2013.
(https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2013/03/12/section-1-views-of-stricter-gun-laws/).
Copyright 2013 by Pew Research Center.

116
The data presented in Table 5 highlights a shift in the reasons for gun ownership, with a
significant rise in respondents citing protection as their primary motivation. Compared to earlier
data from 1999, the 2013 survey reflects that the percentage of gun owners who own a firearm
for safety has increased notably, from 26% to 48%. This change suggests a growing perception
of firearms as necessary for personal security. On the other hand, a considerable number of
respondents, 58% to 39%, expressed concern that stricter gun laws would complicate Americans’
ability to protect their families and homes. Additionally, 57% felt that more stringent gun laws
might grant excessive power to the government, against 40% who disagreed with that view.

117
Table 5
Positive and Negative Perspectives (Mixed Reactions) From Americans About Stricter Gun
Laws-2013 Survey
Public sees positives and negatives from stricter gun laws
Agree Disagree DK
Stricter gun laws would … % % %
Reduce number of deaths caused by mass
shootings
54 43 3 = 100
Reduce the number of accidental deaths
caused by guns
52 46 2 = 100
Help keep guns out of the hands of
criminals
51 47 2 = 100
Make it more difficult for people to
protect their homes and families
58 39 3 = 100
Give too much power to the government
over average citizens
57 40 3 = 100
Gun control measures will eventually
lead to stricter laws which will take
guns away from all citizens
47 50 3 = 100
Note. Pew Research Center Feb. 13–18. Q22. Figures may not add to 100% because of rounding.
Adapted from Section 1: Views of stricter gun laws by Pew Research Center, 2013.
(https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2013/03/12/section-1-views-of-stricter-gun-laws/).
Copyright 2013 by Pew Research Center.
In line with this topic, further analysis revealed in Figure 8 from a survey by the Pew
Research Center, overseen by researcher Schaeffer in 2017, indicated an uptick in the number of
Americans advocating for more stringent gun regulations. This increase occurred from 2016 to
2017 despite the deep-seated partisan divisions surrounding gun policy.

118
Figure 8
Perspectives of Americans on Stricter Gun Laws, 2015–2018
Note. Adapted from Share of Americans Who Favor Stricter Gun Laws Has Increased Since
2017 [Blog post] by K. Schaeffer, 2019. Pew Research Center.
(https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/10/16/share-of-americans-who-favor-strictergun-laws-has-increased-since-2017/). Copyright 2019 by Pew Research Center.
The graphical representations of the findings imply that the number of Americans
concerned about individual (emotional and physical) safety was higher in 2017 than in 2019.
This is because the number of Americans supporting stricter gun laws increased from 57% to
60% between 2017 and 2019. Those who suggest that gun laws should be less strict also show a

119
statistically significant drop (39%) from 18% in 2017 to 11% in 2019. Furthermore, as depicted
in Figure 9, Americans’ concern for individual safety has been bipartisan, with substantial
majorities from both the Republican and Democratic parties supporting comprehensive
background checks for private gun sales. The Pew Research Center’s 2017 survey data shows
that 93% of Democrats and 82% of Republicans surveyed favored more rigorous background
checks.

120
Figure 9
Partisan Perspectives of Americans on Stricter Gun Laws, 2015–2019
Note. Adapted from Share of Americans Who Favor Stricter Gun Laws Has Increased Since
2017 [Blog post] by K. Schaeffer, 2019. Pew Research Center.
(https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2019/10/16/share-of-americans-who-favor-strictergun-laws-has-increased-since-2017/). Copyright 2019 by Pew Research Center.
A 2017 Gallup poll, as Reinhart discussed in 2018, reveals a divided stance on gun
control in the United States yet indicates a consensus across parties for preventing individuals
with mental illnesses from purchasing guns. Figure 10 captures the evolving American sentiment
on gun control, showing initial peak support for stricter laws at 78% in 1993, a trough to 44% by

121
2010, followed by a resurgence to 67% in 2016, and a slight retreat to 61% by 2018. Meanwhile,
the appetite for more lenient laws has been consistently minimal, dwindling to 8% in 2018, and
the preference to maintain the status quo on gun laws has recently lessened to 30%.However, the
consensus declines on the issue of banning high-capacity magazines and assault-style weapons,
with Democrats showing much higher support (87% and 88%, respectively) compared to
Republicans (54% and 50%, respectively), indicating a significant divergence in views on these
more restrictive gun control policies.
Figure 10
Perspectives of Americans on Stricter Gun Laws, 1992–2019
Note. Adapted from Six in 10 Americans Support Stricter Gun Laws by R. Reinhart, 2018.
Gallup. (https://news.gallup.com/poll/243797/six-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx).
Copyright 2018 by Gallup.

122
Findings shown in Figure 11 by the Gallup Organization (Reinhart, 2018) show a
growing trend of stricter gun laws across the United States, especially after incidences like mass
shootings. On a tribal line based on partisan perspective, the data from the Gallup Organization
shows that both parties support stricter gun laws, as 87% of Democrats and 31% of Republicans
support the laws.
Figure 11
Partisan and Demographic Perspectives of Americans on Stricter Gun Laws, 2018
Note. Adapted from Six in 10 Americans Support Stricter Gun Laws by R. Reinhart, 2018.
Gallup. (https://news.gallup.com/poll/243797/six-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx).
Copyright 2018 by Gallup.

123
Collectively, the above beliefs established by the Pew Research Center and Gallup
Organization align with the core tenets of safety, as the participants (both gun owners and nonowners) unanimously supported that stricter measures would protect people from potential
harm—be they emotional/psychological or physical threats. These further highlight the
increasing influence of the culture of safetyism in global discussions and national conversation
between 2008 and 2016—during President Obama’s administration.
Anti-bullying. The period of 2008–2016 also saw a myriad of changes in civil rights to
protect people from potential emotional and physical harm, especially people from marginalized
groups (like the LGBTQ community) from sexual harassment and bullying. This made an
extraordinary turn of events regarding safetyism as the concept grew while Americans
familiarized themselves with its various principles. President Obama developed several policies
to protect the marginalized from harm or threats. According to the factual record by The White
House Office of the Press Secretary (2016), President Obama signed into law the Matthew
Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act in 2009, which was meant to curtail
acts of attack based on an individual’s actual or perceived sexuality or gender identity.
Additionally, in 2009/2010, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, in
collaboration with other pertinent federal sectors, established the It Gets Better narrative and a
federal government website to prevent bullying of LGBTQ youths which would otherwise
heighten the youths’ risks of depression and suicide (The White House Office of the Press
Secretary, 2016). The Obama administration also saw the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell
narrative, where the president signed bipartisan legislation in 2010 (under the pressure of the
marginalized communities) to allow gay, lesbian, and bisexual Americans to receive equal
opportunities to serve in the armed forces without any forms of emotional harms or physical

124
threats (The White House Office of the Press Secretary, 2016). These policy changes, as enacted
by President Obama, reflect the growing emphasis on safeguarding marginalized communities
and students from perceived dangers of emotional/physical harm, promoting a sense of safetyism
in American social and political environments between 2008 and 2016.
Parenting Practices. Furthermore, due to the public’s knowledge of safetyism across the
United States, American parents became overprotective of their children between 2008 and 2016.
According to a survey conducted by Pew Research Center (2015), 62% of respondents suggested
that they were often overprotective of their children and rarely or did not give them the freedom
to interact with their peers—as this is a perceived way of ensuring their safety. Only a quarter of
the parents gave their children the freedom to interact with their peers and face the world with its
realities (Figure 12).
Figure 12
Parenting Styles Among American Parents, 2015
Note. Adapted from Parenting in America by Pew Research Center, 2015.
(https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2015/12/17/parenting-in-america/). Copyright 2015
by Pew Research Center.

125
Figure 12 reveals a gender disparity in parenting approaches, showing that surveyed
fathers were more inclined to give too much freedom (33%) than mothers (19%). Mothers were
more likely to be overprotective (68%) than fathers (54%). In aggregate, 25% of all parents
thought they sometimes allow too much freedom, and 62% considered themselves
overprotective. This suggests a tendency toward safetyism in parenting, particularly among
mothers, who prioritize their children’s safety and protection.
This pattern of parental protectiveness, as seen in the survey data, mirrors the broader
intensification of safetyism in American culture during President Obama’s era. It permeates
social norms, economic considerations, and political discourse, influencing how individuals and
institutions prioritize safety and risk avoidance. This cultural evolution toward a more protective
stance may have lasting implications on American society’s decision-making processes and the
fabric.
The Trump Era and Heightened Polarization: 2016–2019
During this timeframe, certain facets of President Donald Trump’s tenure are addressed,
thereby highlighting themes related to concept creep, tribalism, psychological well-being, and
the phenomenon of cancel culture. Table 6 presents a framework for cataloging research,
featuring excerpts from select articles. These articles are integral to the supporting research in
this section and offer insightful contributions specifically for the years 2016–2020. During this
timeframe, the research addresses certain facets of President Donald Trump’s tenure,
highlighting themes related to concept creep, tribalism, psychological well-being, and the
phenomenon of cancel culture. These references are extensively used throughout to substantiate
the ensuing exploration of these complex topics.

126
Table 6
Framework for Cataloging Research
Author Title of article Type of artifact
American Psychological
Association (2020)
Stress in America 2020 Survey
Doherty et al. (2016) Partisanship and Political Animosity in
2016
Journal article
Haslam (2016) Concept Creep: Psychology’s Expanding
Concepts of Harm and Pathology
Journal article
Jones and McNally (2022) Does Broadening One’s Concept of
Trauma Undermine Resilience
Journal article
Mitchell (2021) How America Changed During Donald
Trump’s Presidency
Journal article
Riley (2017) Oxford Head Wants Gay Students to
Debate Homophobic Teachers
Op-ed article
McCoy Family Center for
Ethics in Society (2023)
Equality of Outcome University website
Concept Creep
As Haslam (2016) described, concept creep refers to broadening social concepts,
particularly those related to negative aspects of human experience and behavior, to include a
wider variety of phenomena than previously recognized. These expansions result in diverse
conceptual definitions, contributing to a broadened understanding of society. Concept creep can
exacerbate daily experiences of fearfulness and catalyze a sense of virtuous victimhood (Harper
et al., 2022). A better exploration of concept creep is determined through analysis of concept
breath for a range of social disciplines. Analytically, concept creep is perceived as a standard
human procedure where humans can broaden social concepts for mental shortcuts (Harper et al.,
2022). Concept creep explores how narratives of safetyism have contributed to broadening the
meanings of key societal concepts.

127
This phenomenon, rooted in postmodern perspectives, emphasizes subjective experiences
and questioning universal truths, leading to terms encompassing a more comprehensive array of
phenomena. While this expansion aims for inclusivity, it risks diminishing the significance of
concepts related to harm, abuse, and trauma. This broadening of terms may blur the distinction
between minor discomforts and severe harm, potentially trivializing serious issues.
Consequently, this complexity could impede discussions and responses to these critical matters,
hampering efforts to address significant violations of personal well-being (Dakin et al., 2022;
Haslam, 2016). The conflation of minor discomforts with severe harm, as facilitated by concept
creep, could lower individuals’ resilience. By labeling increasingly mild events as harmful,
concept creep might make individuals more susceptible and fragile, potentially leading them to
catastrophize everyday life (P. Jones & McNally, 2022). Furthermore, the semantic inflation of
terms like “trauma” in psychology could escalate social and political conflicts by intensifying
disagreements on what constitutes harm, thereby polarizing perceptions of victims and
perpetrators (Baes et al., 2023). The theory of concept creep suggests a systematic expansion of
harm-related concepts over the past 5 decades, mirroring the broader societal trend of concept
creep (M. McGrath & Haslam, 2020). As posited, this broadening of harm-related concepts
aligns with the overarching phenomenon of concept creep, where terms evolve to encompass a
broader range of phenomena (Wheeler et al., 2019).
Delving deeply into conservative and liberal ideologies in the United States and the
United Kingdom, many individuals developed expanded definitions for concepts pivotal to their
ideological perspectives. There are instances where moral institutions are part of the conceptual
expansions. For example, the weight liberals labeled on harm-based moral violations escalates
the need to engage in the broadening of definitions of concepts in moral topics such as trauma

128
and prejudice. In contrast, conservatives tend to approach concept breadth by emphasizing purity
and loyalty across a wide range of concepts, including those related to sexual deviance and
terrorism. Referencing the work of Harper and colleagues (2022), supported by the Committee of
Publication Ethics, survey findings suggest differing perspectives on moral violations. As Figure
13 reflects, data interpretation shows that ideological liberals with a negative skew are prone to
broaden definitions of harm-associated concepts like trauma and prejudice. On the other side, a
positive skew indicates that conservatives are more likely to extend the understanding of
concepts tied to purity and loyalty, with a particular focus on issues such as sexual deviance and
non-violent terrorism, such as data breaches. The posterior means, marked by gradients in
concept breadth task scores against political conviction scores, illustrate these ideological
differences in conceptual breadth.

129
Figure 13
Liberal and Conservative Item Analysis
Note. Adapted from “Do concepts creep to the left and the right? Evidence for ideologically
salient concept breadth judgments across the political spectrum,” by C. A. Harper, H. Purser, &
T. Baguley, 2022, Social Psychological & Personality Science, 14(3), 319–332.
(https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221104643). Copyright 2022 by Social and Personality
Psychology Consortium.
During the Trump administration, the phenomenon of concept creep became particularly
evident as the definition of terms like “harm” extended beyond their traditional scope. This
expansion, observable in numerous public discourse and policy formulation facets, mirrored the
shifting societal values and political landscape. The term “harm” evolved to include not just

130
physical injury but emotional distress as well. Political polarization in that era led to the
perception of opposing party views as emotionally damaging. A 2016 Pew Research Center
study by Doherty, which surveyed 1,145 Republicans and 1,548 Democrats, highlighted this
sentiment. Approximately 68% of the Republicans surveyed associated the concept of harm with
Democratic policies, while 62% of the Democrats found Republican policies harmful. Such
perceptions exacerbated the polarization and, as a result, contributed to the broadening of terms
and concepts during that time.
The data in Figure 14 suggest that from 2016 to 2019, during President Trump’s
administration, polarization notably intensified, possibly as a result of expanded definitions of
social concepts and an emphasis on safetyism, which may contribute to a more adversarial
climate. These conditions highlight the potential need for political correctness as a mitigating
factor. Additionally, concept creep appears to have exacerbated the divide, escalating partisan
tensions between Democrats and Republicans.

131
Figure 14
Why Americans Identify As Either Republican or Democrat
Note. Adapted from Partisanship and Political Animosity in 2016 [Press release] by C. Doherty.
Pew Research Center. (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2016/06/06-22-16-Partisanship-and-animosity-release.pdf). Copyright
2016 by Pew Research Center.
In contemporary contexts, instances of concept creep are discernible across diverse
spheres encompassing language, social norms, and policy discourse—for example, the realm of
mental health terminology, where the semantic landscape has witnessed significant expansion.

132
Terms like anxiety and trauma have undergone a notable broadening, encompassing a spectrum
of experiences and emotions that transcend conventional clinical confines. Similarly, the domain
of gender identity recently experienced profound evolution, marked by an increasing
acknowledgment of nonbinary and transgender identities. With the proliferation of online
communication platforms, the concept of bullying has extended its purview to encompass
various forms of harassment and aggression endemic to digital spaces. Moreover, in
environmentalism and sustainability, conceptual frameworks have expanded beyond traditional
conservation efforts to integrate social justice, economic equity, and cultural preservation
considerations. Additionally, the landscape of identity politics has undergone a transformative
expansion, embracing a diverse array of social identities beyond race and gender, including
facets such as sexual orientation, disability, and religion. These instances offer compelling
illustrations of how concept creep permeates contemporary society, emphasizing the nuanced
interplay between evolving cultural values, technological progressions, and shifting
understandings of human behavior and social dynamics.
Tribalism
The schisms within American society have proliferated to a degree surpassing previous
historical junctures, second perhaps only to the chasms wrought during the Vietnam War and the
civil rights movement (Shapiro & Fogel, 2019). Since his ascension to office, discernible
manifestations of tribalism have emerged, imperiling the cohesion of democratic institutions
through the propagation of polarization. Tribalistic tendencies profoundly influence individuals’
psychological makeup, engendering a climate of safetyism wherein individuals exercise caution
in selecting confidants and engaging in discourse with those perceived as outside their tribal
affiliations (Shapiro & Fogel, 2019).

133
Trump staunchly criticized the viewpoints and positions of Democrats while vigorously
advocating for the Republican agenda. His approach exacerbated divisions and ensured
Americans’ polarization along party lines (Mitchell, 2021). Democrats’ and Republicans’
approval rates concerning his tenure are evidence of this divide. For instance, Mitchell (2021)
found that about 86% of Republicans approved of his success in handling the administration. In
contrast, about six percent of Democrats did so. His overall approval rate worsened due to the
divisions he caused among Americans. Trump’s overall job performance rating in his last days in
office was lower than average at 29%. Compared to his predecessors, he was the poorest in
approval ratings (Figure 15).

134
Figure 15
Approval of Presidency Performance
Note. Adapted from How America Changed During Donald Trump’s Presidency by T. Mitchell,
2021. Pew Research Center. (https://www.pewresearch.org/2021/01/29/how-america-changedduring-donald-trumps-presidency/#fn-383636-1). Copyright 2021 by Pew Research Center.
The division between Democrats and Republicans was based not only on Trump’s
administration but also on some of his attributes and personality as president of the United
States. According to results from a Pew Research Center (2019) study on 10,170 adults, more
than half of the Republicans supported Trump’s way of speech. The concerns over his rhetoric,
as reflected in the responses, highlight a significant partisan divide. Figure 16 shows that about
55% of surveyed Americans viewed Trump’s confrontational speech as a critical factor in
fostering negative shifts, such as the intensification of political tribalism. Conversely, 24% saw

135
these developments as positive, while around 20% observed minimal or no impact. Moreover,
the figure emphasizes a widespread belief, with 78% of respondents indicating that aggressive
rhetoric from elected officials during Trump’s term likely exacerbated divisions and heightened
risks of violence toward specific groups, thereby amplifying tribal tensions across the nation.
Figure 16
Survey on U.S. Adults on Leaders’ Aggressive Speech
Note. Adapted from Public Highly Critical of State of Political Discourse in the U.S. by Pew
Research Center, 2019. (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/06/19/public-highly-criticalof-state-of-political-discourse-in-the-u-s/#large-shares-have-negative-reactions-to-what-trumpsays). Copyright 2019 by Pew Research Center.

136
Tribalism during President Trump’s reign also manifested due to heightened partisan
divisions, especially in the attitude of Americans toward news media. Data collected from 4,151
panelists and findings by Barthel and Mitchell (2017) show that American behavior toward news
varies depending on party lines (Figure 17). Both Democrats and Republicans had increased their
viewership in the news. For example, Democrats had increased their viewership in the news from
a third to about 49%. This increase showed their concern regarding Trump’s speech, which was
divisive along party lines. Nonetheless, about 45% of the Democrats preferred getting the news
from mobile devices, showing an increase of 9% before Trump’s election. These changes did not
apply to Republicans, showing polarization among the Democrats based on partisanship.

137
Figure 17
Survey Conducted on the Increase of the Use of Mobile Phones for News
Note. Adapted from Americans’ Attitudes About the News Media Deeply Divided Along Partisan
Lines by M. Barthel & A. Mitchell, 2017. Pew Research Center.
(https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2017/05/10/americans-attitudes-about-the-newsmedia-deeply-divided-along-partisan-lines/). Copyright 2017 by Pew Research Center.
During the political period of 2016–2019, the United States encountered heightened
polarization that triggered notable implications on psychological health that signified anxiety and
fear. As shown in Figure 18, a survey by the American Psychological Association (2021) found

138
that 57% of Americans reported that the political environment during the administration of
President Trump was a significant source of stress and psychological issues. Nearly two-thirds of
a sample of 3,511 participants believed that stress triggers would persist throughout his
administration. When looking at partisan attitudes, a majority of Republicans, at 59%, expected
an increase in stress triggers during the Trump administration, and this sentiment was even
stronger among Democrats, with 76% anticipating the same. This study suggests that the era
marked by significant polarization under President Trump corresponded with heightened
psychological distress.
Figure 18
A Survey on Americans on Causes of Stress and Psychological Health Concern
Note. Adapted from Stress in America: Coping With Change by American Psychological
Association, 2017. (https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2016/coping-withchange.pdf). Copyright 2017 by American Psychological Association.

139
Online harassment is another critical parameter that has been studied to show how
polarized America became under Trump. Research by the Pew Research Center shows that 41%
of 10,093 adult Americans have experienced online harassment in several ways. Some of the
ways they experienced harassment include stalking, sexual harassment, and offensive addresses,
among others (Vogels, 2021a). The incidence of harassment witnessed a consistent uptick in
2017, coinciding with the initial stages of President Trump’s administration. However, it could
be contended that the expanded understanding of what constitutes harassment has become more
apparent due to concept creep.
The landscape of societal interactions is shifting, leading to noteworthy trends in
harassment patterns (Figure 19). For example, Vogel (2021a) found that in 2014, approximately
15% of 10,093 respondents reported experiencing a more intense array of harassment factors. By
2017, this percentage had risen modestly to 18%. This steady climb was particularly evident
during President Trump’s tenure from 2016 to 2019, which was marked by growing polarization
and tribalism. The study’s findings suggest that such harassment, often targeting specific groups
or social classes, is predominantly observed in environments where tribalistic behaviors are
prevalent.

140
Figure 19
A Survey on the Increase of Number of Americans Reporting Variety of Factors Causing
Harassment in the United States
Note. Adapted from The State of Online Harassment by E. A. Vogels, 2021. Pew Research
Center. (https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/01/13/the-state-of-online-harassment/).
Copyright 2021 by Pew Research Center.
The table illustrates a trend of increasing online harassment from 2014 to 2020, with
every category showing a rise in reported incidents. The overall experience of online harassment
has also grown from 35% to 41%, with reports of multiple behaviors rising from 16% to 28%.

141
This upsurge in harassment correlates with the increased prevalence of social media, as these
platforms have become more integrated into daily life, providing more opportunities for
interactions that can turn hostile. In particular, the rise in severe cases might be linked to the
anonymity and reach that social media platforms afford, potentially emboldening individuals to
engage in aggressive or harmful online behaviors.
The Public Religion Research Institute 2018 survey of 2,509 Americans revealed diverse
priorities among voters: 40% ranked health care cost as their top concern, followed by economic
conditions (34%) and the wealth gap (27%), as highlighted in Figure 20 (R. P. Jones et al.,
2018). Partisan differences are stark, with Democrats focusing on health care, the wealth gap,
gun policy, and racial inequality, while Republicans prioritize the economy, national security,
and immigration. Gender disparities within parties show Republican men and Democratic
women emphasizing the economy and abortion, respectively, more than their counterparts.
Ethnic and racial differences also emerge, with Hispanic Americans prioritizing immigration and
Black Americans focusing on racial inequality, indicating complex layers of concerns that shape
the American political landscape.

142
Figure 20
A Survey of Voting Patterns Based on Various Issues
Note. Adapted from Partisan Polarization Dominates Trump Era: Findings From the 2018
American Values Survey by R. P. Jones, D. Cox, R. Griffin, M. Najle, M. Fisch-Friedman, & A.
Vandermaas-Peeler, 2018. Public Religion Research Institute.
(https://www.prri.org/research/partisan-polarization-dominates-trump-era-findings-from-the2018-american-values-survey/). Copyright 2018 by Public Religion Research Institute.
Democrats and Republicans again divided on whom to vote for during elections. For
instance, Democrats would prefer having better health care, while Republicans believe the
economy should be the priority. These issues can be considered sources of increased
polarization, especially during the Trump era, when the administration was perceived to have
inclined its policies to the Republicans. These findings explain the increase in polarization. This

143
increase was accompanied by increased tribalism because Democrats and Republicans could not
agree on many issues.
The increasing partisanship in America reflects the rising number of voters identifying as
independents, indicative of a move away from strict party loyalty. This shift suggests potential
challenges to effective governance and a diminished engagement in political discourse. The trend
encompasses a broad spectrum, with criticism extending to media outlets across the political
landscape. The movement toward polarized positions rather than nuanced discussion of issues is
becoming more pronounced. Data shows that since 2009, the proportion of political independents
has grown significantly, with 41% of people now identifying as independents, surpassing those
who identify as Republicans or Democrats, both at 28% (B. J. M. Jones, 2024).
Psychological Health
In the current political climate, heightened polarization is contributing to stress and
psychological issues among Americans, with around 20% attributing this to online harassment
fostered by divisions between groups like Democrats and Republicans, where opposing views
are less tolerated. Trump’s harmful rhetoric, particularly regarding undocumented immigrants,
has exacerbated these tensions, inflicting fear and mental trauma on immigrant communities.
This effect aligns with migration literature, which outlines deportability as a critical factor in
illegalizing immigrants, engendering a state of constant uncertainty and vulnerability due to the
looming threat of deportation (De Genova, 2002).
A variety of studies and surveys, such as one by Offidani-Bertrand (2023), have indicated
that the reign of Trump had shown prominent shifts in the narratives of deportation, and this
caused distinct levels of fear among American immigrants. The narratives underwent changes
that influenced immigrants’ interpretation, leading to increased stress and impacting their mental

144
health status. The survey gave findings on how stress-related narratives were interpreted and
indicated a change in the political climate that triggered more events that brought about stressrelated experiences. This change was highly evident during Trump’s reign. Examination of
deportation trends from 2013 to 2018 reveals a pattern of low rates between 2013 and 2015,
followed by a significant increase from 2016 to 2018 (Figure 21). These fluctuations correspond
to President Trump’s executive orders on migration. From the data, total arrests dropped from
over 200,000 to slightly above 100,000 undocumented immigrants. However, total removal
never dropped below 200,000 people.

145
Figure 21
The Trend in Deportation Rates by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Note. Adapted from “It unleashed all the worries we tried to calm down”: The Trump
administration’s impact on the mental health of immigrant communities,” by C. OffidaniBertrand, 2023. SSM. Mental Health, 3(1), Article 100207.
(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmmh.2023.100207). Copyright 2023 by Elsevier B.V.
Generally, the Trump administration was embedded with heightened polarization in the
United States with much influence on psychological health. Using too many polarizing
sentiments, such as the deportation of immigrants, the concept of safetyism, and online
harassment, have contributed much to divisions based on different political views. These
divisions in the Trump period caused psychological distress and had a negative influence on the
well-being of citizens. Solutions to this polarization are vital for a healthier community.

146
Cancel Culture
Cancel culture portrays social inclusion when one is viewed as giving opinions that are
objectionable by opponents (Hilary Silver, 2020). Cancel culture has progressively supported
divisive politics, and it is highly partisan. During his administration, Trump tended to
marginalize and ostracize individuals or organizations that diverged from his expectations.
Numerous dismissals and instances of intimidation occurred throughout his presidency,
reflecting a pattern of behavior aimed at asserting control. In recent years, cancel culture has
emerged as a contentious topic within national political debates, with discussions focusing on its
definition and implications, including whether it serves as a means of accountability, a method of
unjust punishment, or a combination of both (Vogels, 2021b).
Critics have argued that this approach resembled aspects of cancel culture, suggesting an
inclination toward silencing dissenting voices in pursuit of his objectives. This was a recipe for
polarization because the two parties increased their partisanship in this regard. Surveys have
been conducted to harness people’s views on whether it is right to say something that would
offend the other opponents. Results from a study by the Pew Research Center (2018) involving
1,466 adults indicate that approximately 68% of respondents believed that expressing opinions
contrary to those of their political opponents is undesirable and should be discouraged. Only a
minority, comprising roughly 31%, agreed that there are occasions when engaging with opposing
political viewpoints is necessary.
During Trump’s administration, the divisive party politics and partisanship saw both the
Democrats and Republicans give their views on cancel culture and objectionable words.
Democrats and their independent supporters had higher chances than the Republicans and their
independent supporters to say that opposing words, seen as insults, are not fair game in politics.

147
Research shown in Figure 22 by the Pew Research Center (2018) on 1,466 adult Americans
shows that about 75% of Democrats agreed that insulting words should not be used in politics as
they do not lead to a fair political environment. On the contrary, about 59% of the Republicans
felt that some words should be canceled as they are insulting and lead to unfair political ground.
Despite this partisan gap, there has been a relative increase since 2016, when President Donald
Trump took office. The study findings imply that cancel culture is another aspect that brings
about polarization and, consequently, an unsafe environment.
Figure 22
Views on Insulting Words
Note. Adapted from The Tone of Political Debate, Compromise With Political Opponents by
Pew Research Center, 2018. (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/04/26/8-the-tone-ofpolitical-debate-compromise-with-political-opponents/). Copyright 2018 by Pew Research
Center.

148
Contemporary workplaces emphasize psychological safety training, reflecting a growing
recognition of its importance in fostering conducive environments for employee well-being and
productivity. Psychological safety training endeavors to cultivate a workplace culture where
employees feel comfortable expressing their ideas, voicing concerns, and taking calculated risks
without fear of reprisal or judgment. Integrating psychological safety training has emerged as a
pivotal strategy for modern workplaces striving to create inclusive, supportive, and
psychologically healthy work environments. The concept of psychological safety appeared half a
century ago in the organizational science field, but in recent years, empirical research has
flourished in multiple fields (Frazier et al., 2017).
According to a 2018 Pew Research Center study (Figure 23), cancel culture has
influenced American views on language and offensiveness. The study revealed that 55% of
surveyed Americans felt that people are too easily offended by language today, with 45%
advocating for more careful language to prevent offending those from different backgrounds,
noting a 6% increase from 2016 in the latter view. This sentiment is split along partisan lines,
with 81% of Republicans versus 65% of Democrats—the latter showing an 11-point jump from 2
years prior—emphasizing the need for cautious speech. Among Democrats, this perspective was
most prevalent among liberals, where 72% endorsed it, indicating a significant ideological divide
within the party, as depicted in Figure 23.

149
Figure 23
A Survey on What People Say About What-on–What Comments in the Political Environment
Note. Adapted from The Tone of Political Debate, Compromise With Political Opponents by
Pew Research Center, 2018. (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/04/26/8-the-tone-ofpolitical-debate-compromise-with-political-opponents/). Copyright 2018 by Pew Research
Center.
Additional research on cancel culture explores whether leaders should seek compromise
with those they disagree with or instead completely ostracize them. Certain individuals favor
leaders who maintain steadfast principles and unwaveringly to their beliefs. The Pew Research
Center’s (2018) findings on 4,656 adults highlight that about 53% of respondents supported
leaders who stick to their positions and cannot compromise any disagreement from the
opposition. In contrast, about 44% would support leaders who compromise with their opponents’
positions. This survey further escalates the belief that the Trump era had influenced the cancel
culture, where no opposing view was to be compromised.

150
From 2016 to 2019, most Americans could not readily comment on the state of politics or
the president’s administration. Otherwise, they were more comfortable talking about a range of
other topics. As shown in Figure 24 of findings by the Pew Research Center (2019), nearly 95%
of 10,170 respondents said they were comfortable giving their opinions on factors like weather,
sports, and economy, among others, to the people whose background they are not privy.
Otherwise, the public is uncomfortable airing their opinions on topics such as religion, church,
and Trump. Only 25% say they are comfortable talking about Trump with people they do not
know. The prevalence of cancel culture during Trump’s presidency coincided with diminished
freedom of speech and expression, contributing to a culture of safetyism where individuals might
withhold their opinions to avoid the risk of being silenced or ostracized.

151
Figure 24
Survey on Comfort of Americans to Express Their Views
Note. Adapted from Public Highly Critical of State of Political Discourse in the U.S. by Pew
Research Center, 2019. (https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/06/19/public-highly-criticalof-state-of-political-discourse-in-the-u-s/#large-shares-have-negative-reactions-to-what-trumpsays). Copyright 2019 by Pew Research Center.
Generally, the emergence of cancel culture is a factor that orchestrated polarization
during Trump’s era. Figure 24 indicates that politics and Donald Trump are among the topics
people are least comfortable discussing, with only 17% and 25% of respondents, respectively,
saying they are very interested in these subjects. This could imply a reticence to engage in
potentially divisive or polarizing discussions, which may align with the phenomenon where
individuals avoid expressing political views to circumvent social exclusion or backlash, as the
Pew Research Center suggested in 2019. Cancel culture has led to individuals exchanging
information predominantly within their personal or ideologically similar circles, exacerbating
societal polarization. The effects on academic freedom are apparent, with entities such as

152
Heterodox Academy providing a haven for panels and scholars affected by cancel culture and
figures like Jordan Peterson creating new platforms in response. These developments highlight a
burgeoning disaffection with established academic institutions, often viewed as ideologically
biased toward liberal politics. Such circumstances underline universities’ difficulties in balancing
free speech with the need to manage contentious discourse (Quinn, 2023).
The discourse surrounding cancel culture implicates comedians as a focal point of
scrutiny. When individuals engage in cancel culture by targeting others on social media, they
wield a form of sovereign power akin to hate speech, a phenomenon that Butler (2021) described
as depriving individuals of their rights and liberties. This trend reflects a broader societal trend
characterized by an increasing inability to navigate discussions across racial, sexual, and gender
boundaries, as Hooks (2020) discussed. Hooks noted the emergence of a totalitarian disposition
within cancel culture, wherein certain behaviors and actions are deemed worthy of cancelation
rather than open negotiation or correction. As Chow (2021) articulated, this paradigm is
exemplified in cases like Dave Chappelle’s controversial Netflix comedy special, “The Closer.”
In this instance, a subset of transgender individuals found Chappelle’s commentary offensive and
hateful, underscoring the tension between comedic expression and the perceived harm inflicted
by provocative humor.
Safetyism
The rise of Trump to the presidency coincided with the growing prevalence of safetyism
in America. Safetyism advocates for shielding individuals from discomfort, a notion often
embraced by proponents of political correctness. Many Americans decided to keep quiet during
Trump’s administration to find comfort and be safe from potential political attacks. For instance,
according to a study conducted by Ekins (2017) and aided by the Cato Institute, 71% of the

153
2,300 sample involved believe that political correctness has led to instances of silence, denying
people the opportunity to have productive discussions in society. Political correctness is
considered by 28% to have fostered safe spaces, and this view aligns with the sharp rise in
safetyism observed during the Trump era, which was fueled by increasing societal polarization.
The findings further highlighted how Trump’s tenure increased polarization in America
to the extent that the journalists who are looked upon for accurate information were treated as
political opposers. For instance, in the study, more than half of respondents, about 63%, believed
that journalists give information contrary to the truth and views of the American people; hence,
they were labeled as the enemy of the people (Figure 25). However, in the broader spectrum,
most Americans respect journalists and believe in the information they give. This study
highlights the deep polarization within society and the political climate. Journalists serve as the
voice of the people; if their voices are silenced, other members of society will be left without a
voice.

154
Figure 25
A Survey on How People View Journalists
Note. Adapted from The State of Free Speech and Tolerance in America by E. Ekins, 2017. Cato
Institute. (https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/state-free-speech-tolerance-america#overview).
Copyright 2017 by Cato Institute.
From 2016 to 2019, increasing safetyism manifested on college campuses through
increased use of trigger warnings and safe spaces. These actions to mitigate the potential harm to
the students have increased. Numerous studies were conducted between 2016 and 2019 with
much emphasis on safetyism. For example, according to Bouchrika (2021), under the LeNDU
survey shown in Figure 26, more students seek spaces to interact freely and comfortably with
their peers with minimized harm. During Trump’s reign, the idea of safe places increased, so
people used them to hide from diverse ideas and opinions. The survey further finds that about
36% of 1659 students would prefer universities and colleges that are safe from ideas and words
that may cause harm to the students.

155
Figure 26
Views of the Students on Safe Spaces on the Campus
Note. Adapted from Coddling College Students: Is the Safe Space Movement Working? [Blog
post] by I. Bouchrika, 2021. Research.com. (https://research.com/education/coddling-collegestudents). Copyright 2021 by Research.com
Trump implemented policies to enhance safety and security for American citizens,
including strict measures to control immigration and safeguard the nation from external threats.
His administration employed tactics such as border arrests and deportation to address illegal
migration. As shown in Figure 27, data compiled by Gramlich (2020) with assistance from the
Pew Research Center indicates that in 2019, there was a notable surge in apprehensions, reaching
approximately 851,508 individuals. This increase occurred against a growing demand for asylum
in perceived safe havens. While Trump’s policies faced criticism from many quarters, the rise in
apprehensions highlighted a perceived need for increased safety measures, particularly among
U.S. citizens.

156
Figure 27
Survey on Number of Apprehensions
Note. Adapted from How Border Apprehensions, ICE Arrests and Deportations Have Changed
Under Trump by J. Gramlich, 2020. Pew Research Center. (https://www.pewresearch.org/shortreads/2020/03/02/how-border-apprehensions-ice-arrests-and-deportations-have-changed-undertrump/). Copyright 2020 by Pew Research Center.
The combination of the empirical data depicts a significant growth of polarization during
President Trump’s era, which has a sharp relationship with the growth of safetyism. From the
data and findings, the Trump administration created a social and political atmosphere where
there were some instances of social intolerance, anxiety, and the urge to look for an emotionally
safe space, intensifying the speed of safetyism in American society between 2016 and 2019.
Today’s universities are increasingly prioritizing the creation of safe spaces, catering to
millennials’ perceived fragility. This trend is evident in the prevalence of trigger warnings and
the establishment of safe spaces on campuses. These measures aim to provide emotional support
and comfort to students, but they also raise concerns about their potential impact on intellectual
stimulation within academic environments. The emphasis on creating safe spaces may

157
inadvertently limit the exploration of diverse perspectives and impede robust intellectual
engagement. As universities prioritize students’ emotional well-being, questions arise about the
balance between fostering a supportive environment and maintaining the free exchange of ideas.
This debate surrounding safe spaces has drawn attention from policymakers and academic
leaders alike. In 2016, England’s Minister for Higher Education Jo Johnson issued a warning to
universities: limit debate and face penalties. He underscored fostering student resilience and
encouraging openness to contentious ideas (Syal & Mason, 2018).
Similarly, Louise Richardson, vice chancellor of the University of Oxford, advocated for
discomfort as a catalyst for debate, suggesting that students challenged by their lecturers’
opinions should engage in dialogue rather than seek out safe spaces (Riley, 2017). This sentiment
was echoed by the dean of students at the University of Chicago in 2016, who explicitly stated
that the university does not condone the creation of intellectual safe spaces (Ash, 2017). These
statements reflect a broader discourse on the role of safe spaces in academic settings,
highlighting tensions between emotional well-being and intellectual freedom (Mason, 2016). The
period between 2016 and 2020 witnessed heightened attention on issues of coddling and safe
spaces in academia, the long-term implications of which remain to be determined.
COVID-19 and the Growth of Identity Politics: 2020-Current
Table 7 provides a structured framework for cataloging research, showcasing excerpts
from chosen articles. These articles are crucial to the research underpinning this section, mainly
focused on 2020 to the present. During this period, the research explores specific aspects of
President Joe Biden’s administration and the onset of COVID-19, emphasizing themes such as
fragility, censorship, and social fragmentation. These references are applied throughout this
section to support the detailed examination of these complex issues.

158
Table 7
Structured Framework for Cataloging Research
Author Title of article Type of artifact
Foundation for Individual
Rights and Expression
(2021)
College Free Speech Rankings 2021 Survey
Kerr et al. (2021) Political Polarization on COVID-19
Pandemic Response in the United States
Journal article
Lukianoff and Schlott (2023) The Canceling of the American Mind Book
Saad (2022) U.S. Political Ideology Steady,
Conservatives, Moderates Tie
Research study
Mervosh (2022) The Pandemic Erased Two Decades of
Progress in Math and Reading
Journal article
Mitts et al. (2022) Removal of Anti-vaccine Content Impacts
Social Media Discourse
Journal article
Quarles and Bozarth (2022) How the Term “White Privilege” Affects
Participation, Polarization, and Content in
Online Communication
Journal article
Emotional Pain
The span from 2020 through 2021 saw significant growth in identity politics across the
United States, with a rapid, incremental increase in the degree of emotional pain, especially amid
the COVID-19 pandemic. Generally, emotional pain in 2020 through 2021 grew due to many
inevitable, stressing factors, including societal pressures, the United States’ sociopolitical
(partisan) polarizations, and the increased fearfulness or worriedness collectively escalated by
the pandemic. Numerous studies, polls, and surveys conducted between 2020 and 2022 envisage
that there was a close relationship between the high rates of emotional pain and political identity
encountered by Americans during the pandemic.
According to a comprehensive survey conducted by the American Psychological
Association (2020) among American adults, 78% of respondents stated that the COVID-19

159
pandemic was a significant escalating factor for emotional pain and stress in their lives (Figure
28). On the same note, 67% of the surveyed Americans recorded that they experienced
heightened levels of emotional/psychological distress throughout the pandemic.
Figure 28
Emotional Pain in America: COVID-19 as a Major Stressor for Most American Adults
Note. Adapted from Stress in America 2020: A National Mental Health Crisis by American
Psychological Association, 2020. (https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2020/siamental-health-crisis.pdf). Copyright 2020 by American Psychological Association.

160
The American Psychological Association (2020) data also showed that most Americans
(at least 49%) manifested negative shifts in their behavioral patterns, thoughts, and perceptions
about life due to the pandemic. The report highlighted behavioral shifts, including mood swings
(20%), increased levels of anger (20%), and recurrent episodes of excessive worry (17%), which
are attributed to the emotional turmoil and general psychological instability brought about by the
pandemic.The psychological instability that exacerbated these aspects of emotional pain mainly
comes from consequential societal stressors that stemmed from the pandemic’s undoing. From a
political perspective, the survey revealed that many Americans experienced emotional pain due
to their worries about the long-term well-being of their country—the United States. In the polls,
three-quarters of the surveyed American adults (77%) suggested that their emotional pain was
caused by the national issues regarding the country’s future under the new administration—
President Biden’s leadership (Figure 29).

161
Figure 29
Emotional Pain in America: The United States’ Future as a Major Source of Emotional Pain for
Most American Adults
Note. Adapted from Stress in America 2020: A National Mental Health Crisis by American
Psychological Association, 2020. (https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2020/siamental-health-crisis.pdf). Copyright 2020 by American Psychological Association.
The survey showed that the political tension surrounding the pandemic, heightened by
President Trump’s rhetoric and media saturation, significantly contributed to negative emotions
among Americans. With incoming President Biden and the outgoing President Trump highly
politicizing the pandemic, a majority across the political spectrum felt emotional distress; 88% of
Democrats and 65% of Republicans agreed that the politicization by national leaders exacerbated
their emotional turmoil. These results imply that the heightened levels of psychological pain
most Americans experienced between 2020 and 2021 directly correlated with their political
beliefs, partisanships, and sociological affiliations.
The COVID-19 pandemic in the United States was marked by a significant degree of
identity politics, with the public perceiving Republicans as lacking seriousness in managing the
pandemic, primarily influenced by the political polarization exacerbated by President Trump’s

162
handling and communication of the crisis (Kerr et al., 2021). In other words, Republicans were
viewed negatively and Democrats positively concerning their response to the pandemic and
rhetoric that emerged after that. Collectively, these polls show a close connection between
partisanship, overwhelming COVID-19 information, and heightened levels of emotional
worriedness as critical drivers of the heightened degree of emotional pain and emotional
reasoning across the United States between 2020 and 2021.
Rise of Anxiety
COVID-19 has significantly impacted the health and social lives of Americans, with a
considerable rise in people’s anxiety levels. The sectors affected by the pandemic include
education, healthcare, the economy, and social relationships. Besides death tolls, Americans
became overly anxious and stressed due to the uncertainties of the future as a result of inevitable
losses (financial losses, loss of relatives, job losses) caused by the pandemic.
Various surveys conducted on Americans’ stress levels during the pandemic provide
deeper insights into Americans’ anxiety levels pandemic. A study performed by the American
Psychological Association (2020) on 3,409 adults aged over 18+ discovered that every adult
surveyed reported a stress level of 5.0 on a scale ranging from 1, indicating little to no stress, to
10, denoting a great deal of stress, marking a gradual increase from 2018 to 2019.However, Gen
Z (18- to 23-year-old adults) showed higher stress levels than the average adult at 6.1, steadily
rising from 5.6 in 2018 to 5.8 in 2019 to 6.1 in 2020. Gen Z adults had higher stress levels
because they grew during such times when disruptions were extreme due to the pandemic
(Figure 30).

163
Figure 30
Average Stress Level in American Adults
Note. Adapted from Stress in America 2020: A National Mental Health Crisis by American
Psychological Association, 2020. (https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2020/siamental-health-crisis.pdf). Copyright 2020 by American Psychological Association.
College students have been grappling with educational anxiety-induced stress. From the
3,406 adults in a survey by the American Psychological Association (2020), about 87% of Gen Z
adults had registered their concern that the future of education had an impact on their stress level,
82% reported that lack of knowledge about the college situation in 2020–2021 during such peaks
on the pandemic was another catalyst for their stress (Figure 31). Generally, about 67% agreed
that the future was uncertain amid the continuing destruction of lives and events by the COVID19 pandemic.

164
Figure 31
Gen Z Adults Stress on Uncertainty in the Future of Education
Note. Adapted from Stress in America 2020: A National Mental Health Crisis by American
Psychological Association, 2020. (https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2020/siamental-health-crisis.pdf). Copyright 2020 by American Psychological Association.
These findings indicate that there has been a notable shift in how different people view
safetyism. The Gen Z adults were forced to find new ways of being safe from their fear of the
uncertain future. These shifts and diverse beliefs on potential risks and safety reflect a growing
perspective on safetyism.
Anxiety and uncertainty over the future of schools negatively impact students’ academic
progress. For instance, taking mathematics in a study by Mervosh (2022) in The New York
Times, 14,800 9-year-old school students, those in the 90th percentile, registered a modest drop
by three points in terms of their performance in mathematics. Consequently, those students in the
10th percentile dropped by 12 points. Consequently, students with low performance had a
quadruple effect on overall achievement. The mathematics study observed that students’
performance from the bottom was going down faster than that of the top. These findings revealed

165
a racial disparity, with African Americans performing significantly worse than their White
counterparts.
Words Are Harm
The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic prompted numerous inquiries for which answers
were often elusive. Queries about the origins, effects, repercussions, preventive measures, and
potential remedies were prevalent. However, within the United States, cancel culture gained
traction, wherein dissenting viewpoints regarding the pandemic’s prevailing orthodoxy were met
with condemnation. The year 2020, marked by the COVID-19 pandemic, heightened racial
injustices, and a critical election led to increased social unrest and isolation, causing people to
spend more time online (Dudenhoefer, 2020).Cultural institutions are challenged by protests
demanding social justice and police reform, which promote greater societal equality and foster
ideologies that may undermine open debate and tolerance of differences (Ackerman et al., 2020).
This trend was exacerbated by the assertive stance of influential individuals and institutions in
the media and universities, effectively stifling dissenting voices. Expressing divergent
perspectives on the nature of the disease was perceived as worsening an already pervasive
atmosphere of pandemic-induced anxiety and fear. Between 2020 and 2021, the words perceived
as potential sources and causes of harm were fought against by various groups to ensure a
community that embraces the spirit of inclusivity and safety. Numerous reports have highlighted
efforts to regulate potentially harmful language. For example, a study conducted by Stanford
University (2023) outlined the implementation of the Dangerous Words Initiative, which aimed
to mitigate the risks of harm to others during the pandemic by identifying and addressing various
problematic terms. For instance, words such as ableist language that demean people with

166
disabilities, such as insane, dump, and lame, were discouraged and replaced with culturally
appropriate words.
Quarles and Bozarth (2022) explored how the introduction of the concept of White
privilege influenced digital communication and public opinion, particularly among White
individuals (Table 8). Their study, conducted through two laboratory experiments involving U.S.
residents, focused on discussions around renaming institutions or landmarks. Participants were
asked to respond to an online post that sought their opinions on renaming college buildings,
revealing that the mention of White privilege tended to decrease support from White respondents
for such renaming initiatives. This dynamic also led to more polarized and less productive online
conversations, a pattern consistent among all racial backgrounds. This phenomenon aligns with
the broader ongoing efforts of iconoclasm discussed in Chapter Two, where historical symbols
and monuments are being reevaluated or removed to address past injustices and reshape
collective memory. Their stance on renaming influenced participants’ framing of responses. The
term’s effect appears primarily emotional, undermining support for racially progressive policies.

167
Table 8
Study on Response to Harming Words Such As White Privilege and Inequality
Experiment A Experiment B
Racial
inequality
White
privilege
Racial
inequality
White
privilege
Number of respondents 250 228 233 213
Male 51% 53% 56% 50%
Female 48% 46% 43% 49%
White 82% 78% 81% 84%
Black 11% 8% 6% 8%
Asian 6% 13% 9% 6%
Hispanic/Latino 6% 6% 5% 5%
Other 2% 2% 3% 3%
Multiracial 7% 7% 6% 7%
Bachelor’s degree 59% 57% 67% 65%
Politics
Mean –0.42 –0.35 –0.37 –0.44
Standard deviation 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
Note. Politics was rated on a scale from –2 = strongly liberal to 2 = strongly conservative. Race
percentages add to more than 100% because some people identified as multiracial. Adapted from
“How the Term ‘White Privilege’ Affects Participation, Polarization, and Content in Online
Communication,” by C. L. Quarles and L. Bozarth, 2022, PloS One, 17(5), Article e0267048.
(https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048). Copyright 2022 by PLOS.
Experiments A and B included 478 and 446 respondents, respectively. Overall,74%
responded differently; they did not support the term “White privilege” as opposed to their
counterparts who identified as another race. In both experiments, the respondents were likely to
respond online to the terms “White privilege” and “inequality.” However, they did not respond to
the terms positively. The results show that harmful words were not accepted within the United

168
States as most people preferred personal safety and embraced self-censorship. Harming words
amid the COVID-19 pandemic were avoided during 2020–2021.
Labeling to Shut Down Arguments: Hate Speech, Non-inclusive, Misinformation
Throughout academic institutions in the United States, there has been a notable trend of
suppressing discussions and dissenting viewpoints on controversial topics. This phenomenon is
highlighted by a 2021 survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), a
group advocating for free speech in academia. The survey revealed that a sizable number of
students have felt compelled to censor their ideas at their colleges due to concerns about negative
repercussions. When asked about their freedom to express opinions on campus, over 80% of
students reported engaging in some form of self-censorship. Specifically, 21% of respondents
admitted to censoring themselves fairly often or very often, while 62% did so rarely or
occasionally (Figure 32).

169
Figure 32
A Survey on Students Toward Censorship
Note. Adapted from College Free Speech Rankings: What’s the Climate for Free Speech on
America’s College Campuses? by Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, 2021.
(https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2021/09/24110044/2021-CFSR-Report-v2.pdf).
Copyright by 2021 by Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
There were several cleavages between students of different political orientations,
highlighting a pervasive culture of self-censorship on campus. On the whole, students who
identify as conservative reported much more difficulty discussing a range of issues on campus
compared to their liberal counterparts. Their faculties’ reluctance to discuss contentious topics
emphasizes a broader trend that impedes open and inclusive dialogue. A comprehensive 2021
study by the FIRE, which surveyed 37,104 students from various colleges, further illuminates
this issue (Figure 33). The study found that students’ willingness to discuss sensitive topics
varied significantly across different demographics, including age, sex, and political orientation.
Notably, while both liberal and conservative students selected racial inequality most frequently

170
as a challenging topic, the divide was stark: 59% of conservative students selected it versus less
than half (48%) of liberal students. Additionally, the study revealed disparities in comfort levels
with other sensitive topics: for instance, regarding the topic of sexual assault, 42% of female and
nonbinary students expressed discomfort, compared to 34% of male students. Abortion was
another contentious issue, identified by 51% of students at public institutions, in contrast to 38%
at private institutions. These findings illustrate the broad range of topics that provoke selfcensorship among students and underscore the need for colleges to foster an environment where
diverse viewpoints can be expressed and debated freely.

171
Figure 33
A Survey on a Range of Topics Students Find Difficult to Discuss
Note. Adapted from College Free Speech Rankings: What’s the Climate for Free Speech on
America’s College Campuses? by Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, 2021.
(https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2021/09/24110044/2021-CFSR-Report-v2.pdf).
Copyright by 2021 by Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.
These findings illustrate the broad range of topics that provoke self-censorship among
students, highlighting the need for a more open and inclusive dialogue on college campuses.
According to the findings by the FIRE (2021), COVID-19 is one of the topics that students

172
feared speaking about because universities could cancel a professor or student discussing how
the colleges or universities were managing the virus.
According to Lukianoff and Schlott (2023), political dimensions revolving around
freedom of speech have varied in different centuries. On campus, the emerging style of argument
was meant to shut down people rather than their points of view and ideas. Various institutions
started adopting policies where individuals were not free to express themselves; they would
rather keep quiet and embrace personal safety. In a survey conducted on scholars in colleges and
universities in the United States by the FIRE (2022b), faculties did not approve of students
shutting down speakers, as in many colleges. For instance, above 55% of the faculty members
agreed that it was wrong to shut down speakers in colleges and universities. However, 38% were
of the contrary opinion that they could shut down the professors when they gave speeches on
contrary ideas or ideas that the majority did not support. The survey also recorded that 80% of
faculty members agreed that students should not block entry to campus speech events, and 92%
adopted the idea that violence should not be used to stop campus speeches. This indicates a
cancel culture and a lack of freedom of speech in universities. These polls show the growth of
censorship and safetyism in universities.
Moreover, during the COVID-19 pandemic, misinformation was spread across social
media platforms, creating confusion among communities worldwide, especially in the United
States. Anti-vaccine information is one example that has been constantly spread across various
social media platforms, creating much confusion. The proliferation of anti-vaccine information
on platforms such as Twitter and Facebook ignited the call (cancel culture) to combat the
undesirable spread of misinformation. For a successful eradication of such information, social
media companies started pulling down weird anti-vaccine information from their platforms. For

173
instance, according to an exploratory analysis conducted by Mitts et al. (2022) under ACM Web
Science Conference, Facebook pulled down 3,000 accounts, YouTube did away with 130,000
videos that did not meet its policies on anti-vaccine campaigns, Twitter labeled and removed
tweets that contained misleading information regarding the vaccination—all of which happened
due to people calling for the end of misinformation about vaccines. The survey conducted by
Mitts et al. (2022) under the ACM web science conference on 160 Facebook groups also showed
that the groups were removed on the grounds of posting misinformation (Table 9). Most groups
removed were those whose owners were posting misleading information.
Table 9
Removal by Facebook Group Type 37104
Not removed Removed
Anti-vaccine 46 25
Pro-vaccine 5 1
General vaccine info 68 10
Note. Adapted from Removal of Anti-Vaccine Content impacts social media discourse [Paper
presentation] by T. Mitts, N. Pisharody, & J. Shapiro, 2022, June 26–29. 14th ACM Web
Science Conference, Barcelona, Spain. (https://doi.org/10.1145/3501247.3531548). Copyright
2022 by ACM, Inc.

174
The findings also present how political partisanship influences how people perceive
information given to them by those with different political views. For instance, the issue of the
COVID-19 pandemic was a significant determinant of the presidential campaign and eventual
success of President Joe Biden as he was viewed as serious about how he perceived and handled
the pandemic compared to his opponent, President Trump. Therefore, social media platforms
propagated the idea of safetyism by ensuring users consumed what was universally assessed and
confirmed as safe information for public consumption.
The belief that only individuals you align with produce valuable ideas, while those you
oppose are automatically incorrect, is a concerning fallacy. A survey under Gallup by Saad
(2022) found that U.S. citizens had continuously labeled themselves as either conservatives,
liberals, or moderates (Figure 34). This trend continued between the 18th and 21st centuries,
with the most significant score between 2020 and 2022. For example, on average, out of
interviews conducted with 12,000 U.S. adults, 37% identified themselves as moderate, and 36%
viewed their political identity as conservative. In contrast, 25% chose the path of liberals, a trend
that has been kept for some time (Saad, 2022).

175
Figure 34
A Survey on Identity of U.S. Citizens As Moderate, Liberals, and Conservatives
Note. Adapted from U.S. Political Ideology Steady; Conservatives, Moderates Tie by L. Saad,
2022. Gallup. (https://news.gallup.com/poll/388988/political-ideology-steady-conservativesmoderates-tie.aspx). Copyright 2022 by Gallup. Inc.
American ideological paths remained steady despite the growing cases of COVID-19-
related debates and other pressing issues in the United States in 2020–2021. The labeling
increased political identity and influenced how Americans adopted policies to curb and control
the pandemic. Criticism emerged over President Biden’s pandemic management strategies,
particularly from conservative quarters, who expressed concerns over the impact of lockdown
policies on educational pursuits. Social media became a battleground in the United States, with
individuals from differing political backgrounds voicing opposition to lockdown measures,
arguing they disrupted academic learning and progress. In response to these policies, many

176
citizens sought their own solutions to navigate safety and education during the pandemic,
highlighting the deep divide on approaches to managing the crisis and its effects on students’
learning experiences.
Lex Fridman (2023), in a discussion with Greg Lukianoff, highlighted a decline in
university rankings tied to their handling of cancel culture. Universities previously celebrated for
their academic achievements, like Harvard, have faced criticism and potentially lower rankings
for stifling freedom of speech among professors and students. Lukianoff emphasized, “Harvard
is regarded as one of the worst schools regarding freedom of speech,” noting that a sizable
portion of universities are failing to support free speech. This environment of suppression
extends beyond just Harvard. Many universities have adopted policies that significantly restrict
expression. For example, Stanford University’s adoption of the Elimination of Harmful
Language Initiative in 2020, alongside severe restrictions on student gatherings, illustrates a
broader trend toward behavior-prohibiting paternalism. The initiative led to backlash from the
university community, including the formation of a protest group, Stanford Hates Fun,
underscoring the growing concern over the erosion of free speech in academic institutions
(Koganzon, 2024). The culture of canceling down speakers appeared at the alma mater of Greg
Lukianoff when students tried to shut down the speech of a Fifth Circuit judge. The interview
signifies how censorship and the shutting down of speakers have made it hard to relay
information accurately. In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, canceling people’s opinions
created a culture of safetyism where people feared speaking their minds for fear of being shut
down and remaining in safe positions instead. In other instances, those advocating for reopening
schools were canceled as some people finally lost their jobs due to their remarks concerning
COVID-19 in academic institutions.

177
Overall, the notion of labeling, shutting people down, and censoring people based on
perceived hate speech has created a culture of safetyism in universities, as lecturers, professors,
and students can no longer speak their minds freely. According to Nielson (2018), the term
“hate” is a highly flexible label with a history of being wielded to vilify dissenting viewpoints in
America. Vigilance in curbing so-called hate speech may inadvertently ensnare the individuals
we seek to protect. Presentism, at its worst, breeds moral complacency by viewing historical
figures through the lens of contemporary values. This practice often leads to a false sense of
superiority, overlooking the flaws of our ancestors (Hunt, 2002). Such tendencies parallel
modern debates on regulating speech, where applying current standards risks stifling diverse
perspectives and impeding progress. Students face significant challenges in expressing their
concerns, contributing to an environment that may limit their academic engagement and
discourage open debate and idea sharing. This restriction on free expression can impede the
intellectual development and rigorous debate essential to academic growth. Such limitations on
speech may reflect a shortfall in upholding democratic principles of open dialogue and diversity
of thought. Freedom of speech is not necessary solely to safeguard popular viewpoints but rather
to safeguard unpopular ones, as frequently unpopular opinions prove accurate. Incorporating a
safetyism aspect to deny anything one disagrees with is unproductive in advancing society.
Equality of Outcome Versus Equality of Opportunity
Werdmüller (2018) suggested that equality of opportunity creates a situation where
everyone has an equal platform to showcase, offer/deliver what they can do. In contrast, equality
of outcome is more concerned with uplifting the less privileged individuals to reach the level of
their peers who are comparatively socially or economically stable. During COVID-19, there was
a significant difference in resources and outcomes between people of different social classes and

178
identity groups. This influenced the push for equality of outcome to bring people of different
status to the same level. In an interview with President Joe Biden, as evidenced by Lukianoff and
Schlott (2023), the president suggested making everything equal at each level. He insisted that
every life matters and that it was time for the people of color to be put on a level with their other
American counterparts. He highlighted cases where more deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic
affected Africans than their White counterparts. This was because African Americans had other
underlying socioeconomic and political factors that rendered them more susceptible to this
disease. Stanford University posited that equality of opportunity is rooted in treating individuals
fairly while avoiding imposing uniform equality of outcome (McCoy Family Center for Ethics in
Society, 2023). While focusing on outcomes, such as literacy among children, is crucial for
actual attainment, it becomes less convincing in contexts like standardized tests. Moreover, there
is concern that enforcing equality of outcome may stifle individuality, leading to uniformity in
character, preferences, or abilities.
Focusing on outcomes rather than processes or providing many opportunities has resulted
in a well-known phenomenon: the trophy syndrome. As Clifton Parker posited in 2015, research
demonstrates that children who receive praise for their intelligence or talents are not more
motivated learners. Such praise tends to deter them from challenges and renders them less
resilient in the face of difficulty. Gunderson et al. (2013) found that parents emphasizing facing
adversity and valuing the process rather than ensuring equal outcomes during natural interactions
with their children aged 14 to 38 months significantly predicted the development of children’s
incremental mindsets. These mindsets included beliefs in the malleability of traits, a preference
for challenging tasks, attributing success and failure to effort, and developing strategies for
improvement by the ages of 7 to 8 years. This thinking has led to Generation Z individual’s

179
diminished and uncertain self-belief. Consequently, when confronted with challenges, they
struggle to cope, leading to increased levels of anxiety and depression. Curran and Hill (2018)
suggested that young individuals increasingly adopt unrealistic ideals, which extend to their
expectations for academic and professional success, physical appearance, and material
possessions. They appear to be internalizing a prevailing contemporary myth that both
themselves and their possessions should attain perfection. Dannefer (2000) noted that unmet
educational expectations can lead to depression, frustration, anxiety, and self-doubt, particularly
among students in the United States, where educational stratification is camouflaged by an open
contest ideology, in contrast to Germany’s apprenticeship model. This disparity may make U.S.
students feel powerless and self-blaming when their aspirations for a prosperous future are
unrealized.
According to a poll conducted by the Pew Research Center on 6,878 adult Americans in
2020, about 70% of the target respondents said that social, economic, and political inequality
was significant in the United States, which subjected the less privileged to a myriad of
socioeconomic stringencies (Figure 35). About 42% believed that for the United States to
succeed, it must have embraced strategies to reduce inequality. A majority, 61%, expressed the
belief that there was excessive inequality, while approximately 23% considered the level of
inequality to be average—conversely, a smaller fraction, 13%, perceived inequality as below
acceptable limits.

180
Figure 35
Survey on American’s View on Economic Inequality
Note. Adapted from Views of U.S. Economic Inequality by Pew Research Center, 2020.
(https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/views-of-economic-inequality/).
Copyright 2020 by Pew Research Center.
As of 2020–2024, most Americans noted that inequality gives an advantage to the
socioeconomically stable population over the less privileged, which escalates the debate on
equality of opportunity and equality of outcome. Both equality of outcome and opportunity
debates escalate the idea of safetyism as the population fights for the sustainability and
protection of the less privileged from social and economic extremities and pains.
Safetyism in Full Effect
The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment grants everyone the right to freedom of speech.
Still, the emerging social issues related to speech and treating traditionally renowned phrases,
words, and rhetoric as sources of harm have changed how people view, interpret, and practice
freedom of speech. Traditionally, or in the ancient American culture, speech was treated as usual,
and words were perceived as inoffensive, which has changed in contemporary American culture,

181
where people have become more sensitive to specific words and view them as sources of
potential emotional or physical harm. As a result, American society, especially in school settings,
has overemphasized the culture and practice of safetyism by creating safe spaces to ensure that
students can voluntarily (at will) keep off harmful and offensive conversations, heated topics, or
discriminative speakers/contents. Between 2020 and 2021, an era that saw a significant rise in
identity politics across the United States, the culture of safetyism received substantial attention,
and its impact came into full effect in academia with a considerable impact on Gen Z—the young
population.
The FIRE (2024) survey of 489 schools reveals that 20% of institutions received a red
light rating for implementing stringent policies that heavily restrict free speech, purportedly to
bolster safetyism. Meanwhile, 65.4% obtained a yellow light rating due to policies that could
potentially curb speech freedoms, and only 12.9% achieved a green light, indicating policies that
do not endanger speech and expression. These results, which encompass both public and private
institutions, show a concerning prevalence of regulations that may limit speech, with public
institutions exhibiting a higher tendency toward restrictive policies, as evidenced by 69.1%
receiving a yellow light and 15.2% a red light, while private institutions have a significant
portion under yellow light at 53.1%, and some under warning at 5.3%.
On the same note, private institutions use stringent rules in their written regulations about
student safety and free speech compared to public institutions (Figure 36).

182
Figure 36
FIRE Ratings on 376 Public and 113 Private Institutions on the Extent to Which Their Written
Policies on Learners (as a Way to Ensure the Safety of the Learners) Impact Free Speech
Note. Adapted from Spotlight on Speech Codes 2024 by Foundation for Individual Rights and
Expression, 2024. (https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2024/01/Speech%20Code%20
Report_2024_final.pdf). Copyright 2024 by Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

183
Universities and colleges in the United States, specifically in 2020 and 2022, have used
various common restrictive speech codes within their free speech policies in efforts to ensure
ultimate safety among learners. Still, the resultant outcome infringes on students’ intellectual
capabilities and the sharing of ideas. For instance, as established by FIRE in 2024, universities
have implemented robust bias reporting policies that use bias incident reporting models to report
phrases, rhetoric, speeches, or words perceived to portray bias against specific
characteristics/groups to the institution for punishment. The findings of FIRE (2024) cited Bates
College as an example of an institution that implemented such anti-bias systems to uphold
students’ safety and guarantee the students had free safe space that could keep them from
potential emotional harm.
Safetyism has also been noted in full context in universities and colleges regarding their
contemporary policies on posting and distributing materials. Schools have restricted students
from posting and sharing written materials publicly online and physically on campus. According
to FIRE (2024), it is believed that most of the content may be viewed and perceived as offensive
by other students or the target audience. The FIRE asserted that Kean University is an example
of an institution that has over-embarked on safetyism as it requires students to reserve an area
within the school to physically distribute written materials 5 days before the (distribution)
activity.
The FIRE (2024) also cited Delaware State University as being at the forefront of
practicing the culture of safetyism in full context. The findings suggest that the university
implemented stringent technology usage policies on its students between 2021 and 2024, where
students were banned from using the school internet to cause offense or harm to others. Such
restrictive policies that require students to seek permission before sharing or distributing written

184
materials within schools, reinforced with the technology usage policies used by schools, are
believed to continuously uphold the overall safety—both physical and emotional—of all students
within contemporary learning institutions. These findings from FIRE (2024) are in line with the
findings of Lukianoff and Schlott (2023), which assert that people have contemporarily believed
that words can harm, resulting in a societal overemphasis on protection against potential
emotional or physical harm, thereby intensifying safety(ism) and rendering the latter essential
above all other things including moral ethics. In this context, free speech is a thematic reference
point, providing a benchmark for assessing the balance between safetyism and freedom of
expression.
Part 2: Summary and Research Questions
This segment of Chapter Four explores the research questions and unearthed themes
utilizing qualitative data analysis methodologies. The following sections delve deeply into the
dimensions of the dissertation’s inquiry to uncover underlying patterns and insights,
meticulously examining the linkages among the variables associated with safetyism.
How Are Cognitive Distortion, Safetyism, and Political Correctness Linked?
This research introduces a conceptual model that places the reciprocal relationship
between safetyism, cognitive distortion, and political correctness at its heart. Instead of
suggesting that safetyism merely arises from political correctness and cognitive distortion, the
model contends that these elements sustain and amplify each other. The model’s construct and
the supportive evidence have been outlined and discussed in the preceding sections. The open
coding model employed here sheds light on this reciprocity, revealing how these constructs
contribute to and are shaped by societal attitudes toward emotional well-being and discomfort.
This interconnectivity forms the backbone of the overarching conceptualization, which supports

185
the hypothesis that safetyism, cognitive distortion, and political correctness are mutually
reinforcing. This hypothesis guides the organization and analysis of historical trends and societal
changes, as depicted in Figure 37.
Figure 37
Cognitive Distortion, Safetyism, and Political Correctness Thematic Map

186
How Do Cognitive Distortion, Safetyism, and Political Correctness Link to Fragility?
Cognitive distortions, safetyism, and political correctness contribute to fragility through
several interconnected themes: conflict avoidance, exacerbation of emotional pain, impeding
psychological safety, fostering risk aversion, and perpetuating anxiety. These phenomena
collectively reinforce fragility by prioritizing comfort over growth, emotional avoidance over
resilience, and conformity over authenticity. They contribute to fragility in individuals and
society. Open coding aided in developing the key concepts illustrated in Figure 38 by
systematically analyzing the underlying mechanisms through which cognitive distortions,
safetyism, and political correctness contribute to fragility. I explored how these phenomena
operate within individuals and society by identifying recurring patterns and themes in the data.
For instance, conflict avoidance emerged as a prominent theme, revealing how cognitive
distortions and safetyism encourage individuals to shy away from discomfort or dissenting
viewpoints.

187
Figure 38
Fragility’s Link to Cognitive Distortion, Safetyism, and Political Correctness, a Thematic Map
Similarly, exploring how shielding individuals from difficult truths exacerbated
emotional pain contributed to understanding fragility. Furthermore, open coding aided in
understanding how stifling open discourse and censorship undermine psychological safety,
leading to a lack of genuine connection and understanding. Additionally, open coding
highlighted the role of risk aversion in fostering fragility by discouraging experimentation and
innovation, ultimately hindering personal and societal development. Lastly, open coding helped
uncover how hyper-vigilance and fear of judgment perpetuate anxiety, eroding confidence and
self-efficacy. Through this process, open coding provided a framework for understanding the
interconnectedness of these key concepts and their contribution to fragility.

188
The research question has developed the key concepts or themes, further illustrated in
Figure 38. Moreover, the research analysis has revealed several sub-themes, indicated below.
Conflict Avoidance
Conflict avoidance involves strategies and behaviors to prevent confrontational situations
and maintain peace. The sub-themes identified under this theme are:
• Gun control: Efforts to regulate firearms to prevent conflicts and ensure safety.
• Parenting practices: Parents use these approaches to prevent or reduce conflicts
within the family and society.
• Anti-bullying: Initiatives designed to prevent bullying and promote harmony,
particularly in educational settings.
Emotional Pain
Emotional pain encompasses the distress caused by negative interactions or experiences.
Two sub-themes emerged:
• Words are harm: The impact of offensive language on individuals’ emotional wellbeing and the importance of promoting empathy.
• Social media’s impact: The role of social media in either worsening or alleviating
emotional distress, with a focus on cyberbullying and online harassment.
Psychological Safety
Psychological safety refers to the feeling of being protected from emotional and
psychological harm. The sub-themes are
• Anti-bullying: Efforts to create safe spaces free from bullying and harassment.
• Parenting practices: Parenting strategies that foster environments of trust and
psychological safety.

189
Risk Aversion
Risk aversion highlights the tendency to avoid risks to prevent potential negative
outcomes. The associated sub-themes are
• Gun control: Policies aimed at minimizing the risks related to firearms.
• Anti-bullying: Initiatives to mitigate the risks associated with bullying, including
mental health issues.
Anxiety (Rise)
Anxiety (rise) addresses the increasing prevalence of anxiety in society. The sub-themes
related to this theme are
• Psychological health: Approaches to managing mental health challenges amid
societal pressures.
• Social media’s impact: The influence of social media on anxiety levels, focusing on
comparison culture and negative content exposure.
How Do Cognitive Distortion, Safetyism, and Political Correctness Link to Censorship?
The research question has developed the key concepts or themes. Open coding facilitated
the development of key concepts related to censorship. Language emerged as a tool for
manipulation and regulation, while ostracism revealed the marginalization of dissenting.
Iconoclasm demonstrated deliberate suppression through cultural destruction while labeling
categorized and stigmatized individuals to silence them. Additionally, open coding uncovered
the dynamics of privilege and victimhood in censorship, highlighting power imbalances and
narratives of victimization. This systematic analysis provided a comprehensive understanding of
censorship’s multifaceted nature, encompassing language regulation, social exclusion, cultural

190
destruction, labeling, and power dynamics. The research question has developed the key
concepts or themes, further illustrated in Figure 39.
Figure 39
Censorship’s Link to Cognitive Distortion, Safetyism, and Political Correctness, a Thematic Map

191
Moreover, the research analysis has revealed several sub-themes, indicated below.
Language
Language plays a pivotal role in communication, often reflecting and shaping societal
values and norms. The following sub-themes illustrate the various dimensions of language use:
• Comedy scrutiny: Analysis of how comedians navigate the balance between humor
and potential offensiveness, scrutinizing the impact of their language on audiences.
• Cancel culture: Exploration of the consequences individuals or entities face when
language is deemed offensive, leading to public backlash or ostracization.
• Free speech: An assessment of the state of free speech within society, focusing on the
freedoms and limitations surrounding language use.
Ostracism
Ostracism concerns the exclusion or marginalization of individuals or groups based on
their language use or expressed viewpoints. Sub-themes include
• Shut down: Instances where language or viewpoints lead to social exclusion,
particularly in digital and social media environments.
• University and collegiate influence: The role of educational institutions in shaping
attitudes and behaviors toward language and expression, influencing ostracism.
• Cancel culture: Examination of social exclusion resulting from perceived violations
of societal norms or language standards.
Iconoclasm
Iconoclasm focuses on challenging established norms and beliefs through language and
speech. The sub-themes are

192
• Comedy scrutiny: How comedians use language as a tool to question societal norms
and traditional beliefs.
• Labeling: The practice of categorizing or labeling individuals or groups with
language, often challenging established norms.
• Free speech: Consideration of language and speech that confront and challenge
established beliefs or institutions.
Labeling
Labeling involves categorizing individuals or groups based on language use or perceived
identity, with significant implications, as the sub-themes illustrate:
• University and collegiate influence: The influence of academic institutions on
labeling behaviors, particularly related to language and identity.
• Cancel culture: The dynamics of labeling individuals based on their language use or
perceived norm violations.
• Privilege and victimhood: The use of language to construct narratives of privilege or
victimhood, affecting societal dynamics.
Privilege and Victimhood
This theme examines how language constructs and reinforces notions of privilege and
victimhood with the following sub-themes
• Shut down: The use of language to assert victimhood or silence opposing viewpoints.
• Comedy scrutiny: Exploration of how comedic performances address issues of
privilege and victimhood through language.
• Free speech: Efforts to navigate the tensions between privilege, victimhood, and free
speech principles.

193
How Do Cognitive Distortion, Safetyism, and Political Correctness Link to Social
Fragmentation?
I utilized open coding to systematically analyze critical concepts related to social
fragmentation, revealing several significant insights. The results highlighted concept creep,
demonstrating how societal shifts can expand existing definitions and lead to ambiguous
boundaries. Specifically, the term “hostile environment,” initially from labor law to describe
conditions worsened by harassment, has been reinterpreted in academic settings to evaluate
students’ perceived safety and comfort, indicating that isolated incidents of sexual misconduct
can significantly impact the institution’s overall atmosphere with a pervasive sense of fear
(Koganzon, 2024).
The analysis also uncovered the dynamics of tribalism and groupthink, pointing to the
propensity for alignment with like-minded groups and contributing to societal polarization. A
notable lack of accountability was identified, with evasion significantly undermining trust.
Furthermore, the research explored the debate on equality of outcome versus opportunity,
offering insights into diverse perspectives on fairness. This approach yielded a nuanced
understanding of the complexities of social fragmentation. The research question has led to the
development of key concepts or themes, as further illustrated in Figure 40.

194
Figure 40
Social Fragmentation’s Link to Cognitive Distortion, Safetyism, and Political Correctness, a
Thematic Map
Additionally, the analysis has uncovered several sub-themes, which are indicated below.
Concept Creep
Concept creep refers to broadening concepts’ meanings over time, leading to more
ambiguous interpretations. This theme is divided into the following sub-themes:
• Language evolution: An exploration of how language and terminology evolve,
potentially leading to broader or more ambiguous interpretations of concepts.
• Moral panic: Instances where concepts expand to encompass a broader range of
behaviors or phenomena, leading to heightened societal concern or anxiety.

195
• Psychological impact: Examination of the psychological effects of concept creep,
including its potential to blur boundaries and increase uncertainty.
Tribalism and Groupthink
Tribalism and groupthink highlight the tendency for social groups to foster conformity
of opinion, often at the expense of critical thinking. Three sub-themes emerged:
• In-group bias: Exploration of how tribalism and groupthink can influence language
use and interpretation within social or ideological groups.
• Echo chambers: Analysis of how language reinforces and perpetuates group
identities, leading to the exclusion or dismissal of dissenting viewpoints.
• Confirmation bias: Examination of how language can be selectively interpreted to
confirm pre-existing beliefs or biases within tribalistic or groupthink contexts.
Lack of Accountability
This theme focuses on the evasion of responsibility and its impacts. The sub-themes are
• Blame shifting: Exploration of how language can deflect responsibility or
accountability onto others, minimizing personal culpability.
• Erosion of trust: Analysis of how a lack of accountability in language use can erode
trust within relationships, institutions, or society.
• Legal and ethical implications: Examination of the legal and ethical consequences of
a lack of accountability in language use, particularly in cases of defamation,
misinformation, or harm.
Equality of Outcome Versus Opportunity
This theme explores the debate between equality of outcome and equality of opportunity,
with sub-themes:

196
• Language of equity: Exploration of the language used to advocate for equality of
outcome versus equality of opportunity, including how terminology can shape
perceptions of fairness and justice.
• Social mobility: Analysis of how language surrounding equity debates impacts social
mobility, meritocracy, and resource access discussions.
• Perceived fairness: Examination of how disparities in outcome versus opportunity are
framed linguistically and the implications for public policy, social justice movements,
and societal norms.
Conclusion
Cognitive distortion, safetyism, and political correctness have emerged as primary
constructs within the conceptual model of safetyism, revealing their interconnectedness and
implications for contemporary societal attitudes toward emotional well-being and discomfort.
Through a comprehensive analysis facilitated by qualitative research with a GT approach,
illustrated further with open coding, the intricate interplay of these constructs and their
contribution to fragility, censorship, and social fragmentation has been derived. Themes such as
conflict avoidance, emotional pain, psychological safety, risk aversion, and anxiety were central
to understanding how these phenomena shape individual and societal behaviors. Furthermore,
critical concepts related to censorship, including language regulation, ostracism, iconoclasm,
labeling, and privilege dynamics, shed light on the multifaceted nature of societal control and
restriction. Similarly, in exploring social fragmentation, key concepts such as concept creep,
tribalism, groupthink dynamics, lack of accountability, and debates over equality offer insights
into the complexities underlying societal disintegration. The research questions have served as
the overarching conceptualization guiding the development and organization of these key

197
concepts, further illustrated in the accompanying figure, providing a framework for
comprehensively understanding the dynamics of safetyism and broader societal implications
(Figure 41).

198
Figure 41
Safetyism as a Conceptual Model and Thematic Map

199
Chapter Five: Discussion and Implications
This chapter presents the findings from a study reviewing literature published after 2019,
coinciding with the release of The Coddling of the American Mind. The analysis reveals a
societal overemphasis on emotional fragility, censorship, social polarization, and fragmentation.
These factors collectively influence the prevailing attitudes toward political correctness,
cognitive distortion, and the rise of safetyism as a communal culture. The study adhered to strict
inclusion criteria and employed document analysis of secondary sources, focusing on empirical
research from 2020 to 2024. This chapter details these findings and explores their broader
implications and potential avenues for future research within the conceptual framework of
safetyism. It specifically addresses how these cultural dynamics are perceived and potentially
actionable for the general public in the United States. This investigation aimed to enhance our
understanding of how deeply intertwined issues of cognitive distortion, political correctness, and
safetyism are with contemporary societal challenges.
Comparative Analysis of the Early and Contemporary Findings
Transitioning from the foundational data presented in Chapter Two to the insights
uncovered in Chapter Four, this chapter traces the evolving trajectory of the study. While
Chapter Two presents essential historical context, Chapter Four brings a modern lens to the
understanding, enabling a holistic grasp of the topic. In the following sections, these findings are
integrated, deriving significant conclusions and insights that contribute to the broader discourse.
The research into legacy data in Chapter Two, which delved into the complexities of
fragility, censorship, and social fragmentation, has established a solid groundwork for further
exploration and analysis. Employing open coding, I deconstructed and identified sub-themes
within three main categories: fragility, censorship, and social fragmentation. Within fragility, the

200
sub-themes include conflict avoidance, emotional pain, psychological safety, risk aversion, and
anxiety. The sub-themes of censorship encompass language, ostracism, iconoclasm, labeling, and
privilege and victimhood. Social fragmentation is characterized by concept creep, tribalism and
groupthink, lack of accountability, and equality of outcome versus opportunity. These refined
insights enhance our comprehension of safetyism’s broad impact on societal discourse and unity.
This subsequent research corroborates the initial hypotheses of the presented themes—fragility,
censorship, and social fragmentation—thereby enriching the conceptual framework of safetyism.
Through rigorous qualitative data analysis and identifying these sub-themes, I intend to deepen
our understanding of safetyism’s effects on various societal aspects, highlighting its
consequences for discourse, censorship practices, and social cohesion.
Practical Illustrations of Safetyism Findings
Building on the detailed analysis introduced in Chapters Two and Four, this dissertation
posits that safetyism is a critical driver in shaping societal discourse and cohesion. It exerts a
profound influence on issues of fragility, censorship, and social fragmentation, thereby becoming
a dominant factor in the evolution of societal discourse. The detailed scrutiny of these
interwoven themes uncovers interrelations among cognitive distortion, political correctness, and
safetyism, reinforcing their considerable influence on society. This work endeavored to
illuminate how safetyism amplifies fragility, curtails free expression via censorship, and leads to
the disintegration of societal cohesion. Moreover, it explored how these phenomena are related,
reinforcing each other and collectively shaping modern discourse and interactions. By probing
into these intricate dynamics, the dissertation aimed to offer perspectives for understanding and
addressing the ramifications of safetyism. It advocates for an enriched comprehension of social

201
mechanisms, encouraging critical discourse and engagement as essential steps toward
overcoming the challenges posed by safetyism.
The findings were derived from a detailed analysis of the sub-themes identified through
open coding, as shown in the attached conceptual model. By synthesizing these sub-themes, the
research uncovered intricate interrelations among cognitive distortion, political correctness, and
safetyism. This integrated approach facilitated the identification of the complex dynamics and
far-reaching impacts of safetyism on social interactions and unity. Specifically, the analysis
revealed how the themes of fragility, censorship, and social fragmentation interconnect and
influence one another, ultimately shaping significant societal trends. These interconnected
themes and sub-themes helped to generate three key findings: Silencing Society: The Erosion of
Free Speech, which examines how safetyism contributes to the suppression of open discourse;
Perpetuating Victimhood: The Virtue Signaling Phenomenon, which explores how safetyism
fosters a culture of victimhood and virtue signaling; and Unraveling Overprotection: Cultivating
Resilience in an Over-Therapized Society, which addresses the consequences of overprotection
and the need to build resilience. These findings are highly relevant to contemporary societal
issues and provide a comprehensive understanding of safetyism’s multifaceted impact. This
dissertation aims to illuminate these intricate dynamics, offering perspectives for addressing the
ramifications of safetyism and advocating for a richer comprehension of social mechanisms to
foster critical discourse and engagement.
Findings
The conceptual framework of safetyism, delineated by its three core pillars—fragility,
censorship, and social fragmentation—serves as a lens for scrutinizing the causal impacts of this
phenomenon on society. Qualitative causal models emphasize understanding the processes that

202
lead to specific outcomes within particular contexts, providing a nuanced understanding of how
context and individual factors interact to produce these outcomes (Maxwell, 2012). The ensuing
section thoroughly examines these key areas, aiming to unravel the complex mechanisms
through which safetyism influences societal dynamics. By delving deep into these causal
pathways, this segment sheds light on the intricate and comprehensive nature of safetyism,
highlighting its extensive implications for discourse, unity, and the fabric of social interactions.
Many of the findings and conclusions presented here are derived from my analysis of the
research conducted for this study.
Silencing Society: The Erosion of Free Speech
In the context of the ongoing debates on cancel culture, the phenomena of censorship and
social fragmentation are not new, as evidenced in the second chapter and further corroborated by
the findings in the fourth chapter. The late 1980s and early 1990s campus culture wars,
characterized by contentious debates over affirmative action, political correctness, and
multiculturalism, prompted elite colleges to adopt speech codes to enhance sensitivity and create
affinity houses for minority groups, as discussed extensively in Chapter Four. This response to
student protests over racial incidents marked a pivotal shift in the mission of higher education
toward nurturing an identity politics-based social consciousness (Koganzon, 2024) rather than a
value-free quest for truth. In line with this evolution, the University of Michigan reaffirmed its
dedication to diversity and free expression by adopting principles that underscore the importance
of diverse thoughts and freedom of expression (Fitzgerald & Jordan, 2024). Through this
intervention, the university strives to create a culture where the students embrace open and
spirited debates that enhance innovation. The institution believes that for better research and

203
search for knowledge, there is a need to embrace free speech, hence the university’s dedication
to putting to knowledge and practice the principles of diversity.
In the recent past, as seen in the findings, cancel culture, social fragmentation, and
censorship have been steadily growing. However, the University of Michigan has taken a
different point of view, ensuring that its academic premises embed freedom of expression
(Fitzgerald & Jordan, 2024). The university has set guidelines on updating the statement of
diversity of thought and freedom of expression to ensure that the institution creates an enabling
and respectful environment. The institution recognizes that while freedom of speech may
sometimes lead to disagreements among students, professors, and guest speakers, it remains
committed to promoting equity and diversity and protecting individuals’ rights to express their
opinions. Creating a supportive environment like this is essential for fostering intellectual
development in both students and educators. Upholding these values of free speech in various
sectors, such as higher education, businesses, social media, and beyond, is vital for sustaining a
democratic society where open expression can thrive without restrictions (Lukianoff & Schlott,
2023).
Furthermore, in the Israel and Hamas war, there is suppression of free speech being
witnessed (Quilantan, 2023). Many college leaders, for instance, have resolved to avoid speaking
about attacks aimed at college for fear of being shunned. An example is Rutgers College, where
students and staff avoid speaking freely about events surrounding the war. In other incidents,
students who condemned the attacks of Israel on Palestinians have been censored online, and
company leaders like Sweetgreen wanted the names of the students listed to ban them when they
sought employment in the future. These examples show that cancel culture silences society and
erodes free speech.

204
Ideally, controlling different viewpoints regarding the Israeli–Hamas war is not only
confined to the Middle East’s battlefield but is also widespread in various sectors and parts of the
world. For instance, prominent media figures who have since tried to express their views
regarding the Israel–Hamas wars have been censored, and some have lost their positions. A
survey by the University of Maryland and George Washington University found that among 936
academics, 69% self-censored on Middle Eastern topics, with 82% explicitly self-censoring on
Israeli-Palestinian issues, mainly due to concerns about campus culture, external pressures, and
potential administrative discipline (Langlois, 2023). Such episodes of events have been
increasingly politicized and policed, which have resulted in the dissenting of marginalized
voices.
According to Confessore (2023), there is a perception that higher education tends to lean
toward left-leaning social orientations. Over the past 4 years, there have been efforts by
conservatives to highlight concerns about what they perceive as the predominance of left-leaning
ideologies in higher education. They argued that there are instances where students exhibit strong
inclinations toward social justice, political correctness, and what some term woke-ism, which
they fear could have negative societal consequences if left unchecked. Recent campus
discussions around the Israel-Gaza conflict have sometimes become contentious, with
Republicans cautioning against what they see as a left-oriented ideological stance. Some
Republicans have raised concerns about the adoption of what they view as antisemitic speech in
college communities, arguing that it fosters an atmosphere of intolerance and hostility toward
differing viewpoints (Confessore, 2023). For example, certain liberal politicians have opted not
to engage with institutions that have taken critical stances on Israel’s handling of the conflict,
limiting their appearances and preventing their children from attending such schools. Over the

205
past 9 and a half years, there have been over 1,000 attempts to penalize professors for exercising
their free speech or academic freedom. Approximately two-thirds of these efforts resulted in
punishment for the professors, with nearly 200 cases resulting in termination—almost double the
number reported during the Red Scare (Lukianoff, 2023).Conservatives believe that ideologies
like social justice and woke-ism should be taken seriously rather than dismissed as passing
academic trends or harmless enthusiasm.
To ensure a future where American colleges and universities foster environments of
genuine learning and intellectual growth, these institutions must learn from history and the
current divisive climate. The core of higher education should shift from telling students what to
think to encouraging their critical thinking skills and promoting meaningful interaction with
various viewpoints (Davies, 2014). The issues raised, spanning from political divides to heated
discussions on social justice and woke-ism, highlight the pressing need for educational
environments that prioritize open conversations, analytical thinking, and exploring ideas from
different angles. By stressing the enhancement of students’ abilities to think independently and
objectively evaluate ideas, institutions can nurture well-informed, thoughtful individuals capable
of making positive contributions to society (Walker & Brown, 2020).
This emphasis on fostering critical thinking aligns with the broader objectives of higher
education to equip students academically and as active and considerate members of their
communities. Fostering students’ capacity to think for themselves and analyze concepts
objectively is vital in nurturing knowledgeable, perceptive individuals who can make meaningful
contributions to society. Encouraging active student participation and fostering avenues for
independent thinking resonate with core elements of the educational framework (Siahaan et al.,

206
2021). Moreover, thinking critically is pivotal for academic advancement and ought to be a
foundational competence honed by every student (Malinda et al., 2022; Sari et al., 2022).
The move toward a more inclusive and intellectually diverse academic environment is
crucial for avoiding past mistakes and ensuring a brighter future for the next generations. Recent
shifts in demographics, politics, and ideologies, both internally and externally, have signaled that
higher education is at a critical juncture, necessitating significant structural and cultural changes
to adapt effectively (Phillips & Snodgrass, 2022). Additionally, universities need to move away
from traditional indoctrination methods and embrace interactive education to cater better to the
varied student population of today (Subramanian, 2016).
Perpetuating Victimhood: The Virtue Signaling Phenomenon
The research confirms that safetyism, arising from a combination of cognitive distortions
and adherence to political correctness, profoundly affects societal discourse and cohesion. This
influence manifests in increased fragility, censorship, and social fragmentation. Consequently,
there is a notable proliferation of the victimhood culture in contemporary and global societies. In
modern societies, there has been an increased focus on signaling behaviors related to diversity,
equity, and inclusion (DEI) concerns. Several states have implemented diverse approaches to
address the potential challenges of victimhood and societal division that may arise from
implementing DEI policies. A 2016 content analysis of state curriculum standards found that
California was one of the few states that mentioned LGBTQ words in a substantial way
(Moorhead & Jiménez, 2021).
In 2024, Utah State enacted legislation prohibiting DEI initiatives within its universities
and public offices, citing concerns that such programs may exacerbate disparities, social
divisions, and a culture of victimhood (Patel, 2024). Governor Spencer Cox of Utah argued that

207
DEI efforts could contribute to increased political polarization by overly emphasizing specific
demographics, such as gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion, at the expense of
social cohesion (Patel, 2024). He suggested that focusing on empowering specific groups, such
as Black students or women, might inadvertently marginalize others, leading to heightened
feelings of victimization and societal fragmentation. Utah State’s decision reflects a broader
commitment to the idea that all students possess equal learning potential and may require tailored
support to succeed academically. The legislation maintains that providing disproportionate
attention to particular groups could compromise the principle of equity and foster biases,
ultimately exacerbating societal and interpersonal divisions.
Similarly, in October 2023, North Carolina, led by Governor Mark Robinson, overturned
DEI programs and initiatives. Governor Robinson argued that DEI initiatives often fail to uphold
equal opportunities for all individuals and instead foster exclusionary practices (Robinson,
2023). Despite their purported goals, DEI programs have been criticized for promoting unequal
treatment based on factors such as race and gender, particularly toward individuals with
conservative viewpoints. North Carolina State enacted new legislation prohibiting universities
and colleges from hiring staff based solely on their alignment with DEI principles to promote
equal opportunities. Instead, the law emphasizes hiring based on qualifications, talent, and
experience, irrespective of an individual’s race, gender, cultural background, or societal status.
Criticism of DEI policies suggests that they often perpetuate a narrative of victimhood,
portraying certain groups as oppressors and others as victims based on race, which can further
divide society.
In 2023, North Dakota implemented stringent measures to prohibit the principles and
practices associated with DEI programs. The state enacted legislation preventing universities and

208
colleges from inquiring about students’ and educators’ stances on DEI initiatives and prohibited
mandatory systemic diversity training in public educational institutions (Knox, 2023). North
Dakota’s laws sought to eliminate the conceptualization of race and sex as framed within DEI
perspectives, which are perceived to assign blame to specific demographic groups. Under the
new anti-DEI laws in North Dakota, individuals are protected from reprisal for dissenting from
DEI concepts, aiming to foster free speech and encourage intellectual diversity among students
and the broader public.
Nearly seven years since it began, California’s prohibition on state-funded travel now
impacts a significant portion of the nation. This action was spurred by a surge in anti-LGBTQ
laws, primarily in states led by Republicans. It has repercussions for public college sports teams
needing alternative funding for matches in states such as Arizona and Utah. Additionally, it
complicates other state objectives like financing out-of-state abortions. The ban encompasses 23
states, affecting prominent educational institutions like the University of California and
California State University. These universities face constraints on utilizing state resources for
athletic travel to these states (Associated Press, 2023). As of today, this mandate is no longer in
effect in California. On January 22, 2024, Tennessee introduced a bill prohibiting DEI initiatives.
This proposed legislation targeted the elimination of DEI policies in higher education
institutions, contending that such policies contribute to differential treatment of individuals in
universities and public offices (Sher, 2024). The Tennessee government asserted that DEI
programs foster a culture of victimhood, exacerbating social divisions and exclusions within
American communities. However, the proposed bill faced opposition and was ultimately rejected
by the House Higher Education Subcommittee on March 6, 2024. Similarly, Texas mandated,
effective January 1, 2024, the removal of all DEI concepts and policies from public higher

209
education institutions, including the dissolution of DEI offices on campus (Stacy & Adamek,
2024). The overarching objective of these anti-DEI measures, shared by states that have enacted
such legislation, is to combat victimhood and ensure equal opportunities for all.
Unraveling Overprotection: Cultivating Resilience in an Over-Therapized Society
In today’s society, many parents express heightened concern regarding their children’s
transgender identity, often leading to their involvement in risky behaviors such as puberty
blockers and surgery (Shrier, 2024). Research suggests that females are more likely to undergo
gender transformation compared to males, and peer pressure within college environments may
contribute to an increased identification as transgender rather than heterosexual. Social
influences may contribute to gender dysphoria development, with social and peer contagion
mechanisms amplifying certain beliefs (Littman, 2018). Clusters of transgender identification
within friend groups suggest that group dynamics play a role. The occurrence of transgender
identification within friend groups suggests that group dynamics significantly influence these
identities, as shown when GIC clinicians advocated for helping young clients feel comfortable in
their own bodies, emphasizing the malleability of gender identity in youth and the potential for
natural resolution of gender dysphoria over time (Singal, 2016). These trends have contributed to
a notable rise in transgenderism, perceived by both parents and students as a means to enhance
social status amid evolving understandings of gender identity.
Numerous schools have responded to recent advancements in transgender rights by
implementing measures to safeguard affected individuals. In California, legislation shields
transgender students from potential harm by allowing exemptions from materials or discussions
that contradict their gender identities (Diamond, 2020; Shrier, 2024). Similarly, states like
Colorado, New York, and New Jersey have enacted stringent policies on gender identity while

210
striving to remain pertinent to the evolving landscape of transgender rights and promote social
resilience in an increasingly over-therapized society.
Therapists have been perceived as influential figures in affirming the perspectives of
transgender students, sometimes urging parents to support their children’s gender identities by
highlighting potential risks of non-support, including the possibility of suicidal behavior (Shrier,
2024). With the backing of school rules and counseling support, students might turn to
unnecessary medical treatments like medications and surgeries, causing lasting emotional and
physical harm. The predominant beliefs prevalent in American public schools often encourage
the acceptance of transgender individuals among students (Shrier, 2024). As a result, parents are
advised to actively challenge these possibly harmful and politically divisive social beliefs to
shield their children from prolonged emotional distress, physical issues, and recurrent suicidal
thoughts, especially among Gen Z students. Restar (2019) explored how gender dysphoria and
trans identification can be influenced in part by social and peer contagion, indicating the
potential impact of social influences on the development of gender dysphoria.
There has been a noticeable increase in suicides and stress among young Americans,
especially in the newer generations. Many youths are turning to antidepressants to deal with
emotional pressure, anxiety, and societal expectations worsened by the widespread impact of
therapy in our society. This reliance on medication often occurs even when it might not be
essential. However, Sher (2024) argued that Generation Z youngsters cannot be solely blamed
for their depression and heightened suicide rates; mental health professionals also share part of
the responsibility. The mental well-being of children is affected by various factors linked to
excessive therapy use, including family and school dynamics, the kind of communication they
receive, and guidance from mental health experts, all of which can intensify their emotional

211
distress and contribute to escalating suicide rates (Sher, 2024). Specific therapeutic methods like
talk therapy have been found to create more mental unrest and could potentially lead to
depression. Similarly, emotional counseling may contribute to stress-related issues. Moreover,
gentle parenting has been tied to an increase in behavioral problems and involvement in violent
behaviors among kids (Shrier, 2024). While therapy can offer relief at times, it is essential to
acknowledge that inappropriate therapeutic interventions might worsen emotional harm rather
than alleviate it. According to Lindley and Galupo (2020), instances like being misgendered or
having one’s identity questioned can lead to a sudden rise in feelings of gender dysphoria among
a group of transgender and nonbinary people, underscoring how social factors can affect gender
dysphoria.
In many instances, both academic institutions and parents tend to view their students and
children through a lens of pathology, often assuming the presence of psychological disorders or
emotional instability. During psychological assessments, therapists or educators may pose
questions to young students that can potentially confuse them (referred to as Gen Z respondents)
and contribute to heightened stress levels (Shrier, 2024).
Recommendations for Future Research
Understanding the historical context and the evolution of trends and themes is crucial in
any scholarly inquiry. Insights from GT and qualitative research have significantly contributed to
our understanding, encouraging a deeper exploration of the discovered complexities. It is
essential to remain responsive to society’s dynamic nature. Although qualitative research has
provided substantial insights, integrating quantitative studies could enhance the overall
comprehension of the observed phenomena. Adopting a multidisciplinary approach and adhering

212
to the scientific method will enable future research to dissect the nuances of safetyism more
effectively.
Scientific and qualitative methodologies are instrumental in dissecting and understanding
the culture of safetyism, offering lessons from its challenges. The scientific method facilitates a
structured investigation, enabling the formulation of hypotheses, the collection of data, and the
derivation of objective conclusions. This approach allows for a critical examination of
safetyism’s core principles, assumptions, behaviors, and societal effects. In parallel, qualitative
techniques like ethnography, interviews, and content analysis provide a rich, nuanced perspective
on the cultural subtleties and personal experiences related to safetyism. By merging these
methods, researchers can navigate the complexities of safetyism more effectively, pinpointing its
pros and cons and crafting strategies to nurture a healthier dialogue and societal unity. Through
thorough analysis and contemplation, we can learn from safetyism’s shortcomings, shaping
policies and practices that bolster resilience, encourage open conversations, and cherish
intellectual diversity.
In light of the previous discussion on the dual analysis approach to safetyism via
scientific and qualitative methods, grasping the historical cycles of themes becomes critical. It is
essential to understand how long certain themes persist, their rate of change, and the hindsight
they provide. Such an understanding enables us to use history as a guide to extract valuable
lessons, thereby interrupting the cycle of repetition and encouraging societal progress and
resilience.
As someone deeply involved in human resources, I have observed the tangible effects of
safetyism within organizations. Issues such as emotional fragility, the suppression of speech, and
societal division are increasingly evident in the workplace, affecting the culture and interactions

213
among employees. Addressing these challenges is key to creating a workspace that honors
diversity and promotes an inclusive atmosphere where all viewpoints are respected. In dealing
with safetyism’s intricacies, I focus on enhancing psychological safety and facilitating open
conversations among team members. By situating our strategies within a historical framework
and applying meticulous analysis, my aim was to ease tensions and foster an organizational
environment characterized by resilience. In my view, tackling safetyism head-on is crucial for
employees’ well-being and as a catalyst for innovation and enduring success in a swiftly
evolving world. Recognizing the necessity for mutual respect and coexistence becomes
paramount as we expand our technological and social frameworks, readying ourselves for a
future filled with uncertainties. To conclude with a quote from George Orwell’s preface to
Animal Farm: “If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not
want to hear” (Penguin Books Limited, 2018, para. 9).

214
References
Abdul Rahim, R. A., Abd Razak, M. I., & Ramli, M. A. (2021). Museums and its endeavour to
combat religious extremism-Iconoclasm: An analysis. Journal of Information and
Knowledge Management, 11(2), 207–223. https://ir.uitm.edu.my/id/eprint/65518/
Abrams, Z. (2022). Stress of mass shootings causing cascade of collective traumas. Monitor on
Psychology, 53(6), 20. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/09/news-mass-shootingscollective-traumas
Ackerman, A. A., Ambar, S., Amis, M., Applebaum, A., Arana, M., Atwood, M., Banville, J.,
Bay, M., Begley, L., Berkowitz, R., Berman, P., Berman, S., Betts, R. D., Blair, N.,
Blight, D. W., Boylan, J. F., Bromwich, D., Brooks, D., Buruma, I., … Zakaria, F. (2020,
July 7). Letter on justice and open debate. Harper’s Magazine. https://harpers.org/aletter-on-justice-and-open-debate/
Adams, A. (2020). Iconoclasm, identity politics, and the erasure of history. Andrews UK.
ADA National Network. (2016). What is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)? | ADA
National Network. https://adata.org/learn-about-ada
Adom, D., Hussein, E. K., & Adu-Agyem, J. (2018). Theoretical and conceptual framework:
Mandatory ingredients of a quality research. International Journal of Scientific Research,
7(1), 438–441.
Alford, B. A., Beck, A. T., & Jones, J. V., Jr. (1997). The integrative power of cognitive therapy.
Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 11(4), 309–312. https://doi.org/10.1891/0889-
8391.11.4.309

215
Al-Jarf, R. (2023). Political (in)correctness and the cancel-culture attitude: The case of religious
sectarian language after the Arab Spring. International Journal of Law and Politics
Studies, 5(5), 96–104. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijlps.2023.5.5.11
Allardyce, J., Gilmour, H., Atkinson, J., Rapson, T., Bishop, J., & McCreadie, R. G. (2005).
Social fragmentation, deprivation and urbanicity: Relation to first-admission rates for
psychoses. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 187(5), 401–406.
https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.187.5.401
Al-Mosaiwi, M. (2019). The impact of absolute thinking on wellbeing [Unpublished doctoral
thesis]. University of Reading. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/275551790.pdf
Aly, W., Simpson, R., Fox, I., & Saunders, J. (2019). Political correctness gone viral. In C. Fox
& J. Saunders (Eds.), Free speech and media ethics (pp. 125–143). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203702444-8
The American Federation of Teachers. (2023). Banned words, images, and topics.
https://www.aft.org/ae/summer2003/ravitch_sb1
American Psychological Association. (2020). Stress in America 2020: A national mental health
crisis. https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2020/sia-mental-health-crisis.pdf
American Psychological Association. (2017). Stress in America: Coping with change.
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/stress/2016/coping-with-change.pdf
Anderson, C. B. (1993). Political correctness on college campuses: Freedom of speech v. doing
the politically correct thing. SMU Law Review, 46(1), 171–224.
https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol46/iss1/10/
Anderson, E. S. (2022). Can we talk? Communicating moral concern in an era of polarized
politics. Journal of Practical Ethics, 10(1). https://doi.org/10.3998/jpe.1180

216
Andrews, E. E. (2019). Disability as diversity: Developing cultural competence. Oxford
University Press.
Arfini, S., & Magnani, L. (2015). An eco-cognitive model of ignorance immunization. In L.
Magnani, P. Li, & W. Park (Eds.), Philosophy and cognitive science II (pp. 59–75).
Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18479-1_4
Armaly, M. T., & Enders, A. M. (2021). “Why me?” The role of perceived victimhood in
American politics. Political Behavior, 44, 1583–1609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-
020-09662-x
Arnold, J., & Douglas Brown, H. (2016). A map of the terrain.
https://www.cartestraina.ro/cumparaturi/uploads/item_9780521659635_excerpt.pdf
Arntz, A., & ten Haaf, J. (2012). Social cognition in borderline personality disorder: Evidence
for dichotomous thinking but no evidence for less complex attributions. Behaviour
Research and Therapy, 50(11), 707–718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2012.07.002
Arslan, G. (2022). Childhood psychological maltreatment, optimism, aversion to happiness, and
psychological adjustment among college students. Current Psychology, 42, 25142–
25150. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03538-5
Ash, T. G. (2017, November 28). Safe spaces are not the only threat to free speech. The
Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/16/safe-spaces-freespeech-university-prevent-no-platforming-academic-freedom
Associated Press. (2023, March 30). California may end travel ban to states with anti-LGBTQ
laws. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-politics-and-policy/californiamay-end-travel-ban-states-anti-lgbtq-laws-rcna77486

217
Aster, H. (2021). Untruth #1: The untruth of fragility. Shortform Books.
https://www.shortform.com/blog/the-untruth-of-fragility/
Aydin, A., & Malak Akgün, B. (2021). Interpersonal cognitive distortions and family role
performances in spouses during COVID-19 pandemic process in Turkey. Perspectives in
Psychiatric Care, 58(1), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppc.12795
Badour, C. L., Blonigen, D. M., Boden, M. T., Feldner, M. T., & Bonn-Miller, M. O. (2012). A
longitudinal test of the bi-directional relations between avoidance coping and PTSD
severity during and after PTSD treatment. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 50(10),
610–616. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2012.06.006
Badruzzaman, A. (2023). Repositioning urban bias: Non‐state providers’ use of spatialised
networks in Bangladesh. Public Administration and Development, 43(1), 49–59.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.2003
Baes, N., Vylomova, E., Zyphur, M., & Haslam, N. (2023). The semantic inflation of “trauma”
in psychology. Psychology of Language and Communication, 27(1), 23–45.
https://doi.org/10.58734/plc-2023-0002
Bail, C. A., Argyle, L. P., Brown, T. W., Bumpus, J. P., Chen, H., Hunzaker, M. B. F., Lee, J.,
Mann, M., Merhout, F., & Volfovsky, A. (2018). Exposure to opposing views on social
media can increase political polarization. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 115(37), 9216–9221.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1804840115
Baron, D. (2018, December 23). NPR Poll: Americans don’t want to be politically correct. Tote
bag, anyone? [Blog post] University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign.
https://blogs.illinois.edu/view/25/731854

218
Barrett, L. F. (2017, July 14). When is speech violence? The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/14/opinion/sunday/when-is-speech-violence.html
Barthel, M., & Mitchell, A. (2017, May 10). Americans’ attitudes about the news media deeply
divided along partisan lines. Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2017/05/10/americans-attitudes-about-thenews-media-deeply-divided-along-partisan-lines/
Beauchamp, G. (2018). The danger of too much safety. Humanitas, 31(1), 148–155.
https://doi.org/10.5840/humanitas2018311/27
Beck, A. T. (1963). Thinking and depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 9(4), 324–333.
https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1963.01720160014002
Beckand, A. T., & Rush, A. J. (1985). A cognitive model of anxiety formation and anxiety
resolution. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 7(1-4), 349–365.
https://doi.org/10.3109/01612848509009461
Bellet, B. W., Jones, P. J., Meyersburg, C. A., Brenneman, M. M., Morehead, K. E., & McNally,
R. J. (2020). Trigger warnings and resilience in college students: A preregistered
replication and extension. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 26(4), 717–723.
https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000270
Bendelin, N., Hesser, H., Dahl, J., Carlbring, P., Nelson, K. Z., & Andersson, G. (2011).
Experiences of guided internet-based cognitive-behavioural treatment for depression: A
qualitative study. BMC Psychiatry, 11(1), 107. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-11-
107
Bennett, M. R., & Hacker, P. M. S. (2022). Philosophical foundations of neuroscience. John
Wiley & Sons.

219
Benson, P. (2020). Francis Fukuyama & the perils of identity. Philosophy Now, 136, 26–29.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/136/Francis_Fukuyama_and_the_Perils_of_Identity
Berndt Rasmussen, K., & Olsson Yaouzis, N. (2023). The tyranny of political correctness? A
game-theoretic model of social norms and implicit bias. Journal of Applied Philosophy,
41(1), 122–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/japp.12690
Berryessa, C. M. (2022). Modeling “remorse bias” in probation narratives: Examining social
cognition and judgments of implicit violence during sentencing. The Journal of Social
Issues, 78(2), 452–482. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12508
Bhattacharjee, A., Williams, J. J., Chou, K., Tomlinson, J., Meyerhoff, J., Mariakakis, A., &
Kornfield, R. (2022). “I kind of bounce off it”: Translating mental health principles into
real life through story-based text messages. Proceedings of the ACM on HumanComputer Interaction, 6(CSCW2), Article 398. https://doi.org/10.1145/3555123
Billiani, F. (2014). Modes of censorship: National contexts and diverse media. Routledge.
Bouchrika, I. (2021, March 30). Coddling college students: Is the safe space movement working?
[Blog post] Research.com. https://research.com/education/coddling-college-students
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ0902027
Brakoulias, V., Langdon, R., Sloss, G., Coltheart, M., Meares, R., & Harris, A. (2008). Delusions
and reasoning: A study involving cognitive behavioural therapy. Cognitive
Neuropsychiatry, 13(2), 148–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/13546800801900587
Branch, R., & Todd, G. (2022). Cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety disorders. In G. Todd &
R. Branch (Eds.), Evidence-based treatment for anxiety disorders and depression: A

220
cognitive behavioral therapy compendium (pp. 27–174). Cambridge University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108355605.003
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Brittain, A. (2023, October 17). Me too movement. Encyclopædia Britannica.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Me-Too-movement
Browne, C. A., & Winkelman, C. (2007). The effect of childhood trauma on later psychological
adjustment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 22(6), 684–697.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260507300207
Burkett, E. (2019). Feminism - The second wave of feminism. Encyclopædia Britannica
https://www.britannica.com/topic/feminism/The-second-wave-of-feminism
Butler, J. (2021). Excitable speech: A politics of the performative (1st ed.). Routledge.,
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003146759
Callan, E. (2020). Education in safe and unsafe spaces. Philosophical Inquiry in Education,
24(1), 64–78. https://doi.org/10.7202/1070555ar
Campbell, B., & Manning, J. (2018). The rise of victimhood culture. Springer.
Cascardi, M., Brown, C., Iannarone, M., & Cardona, N. (2014). The problem with overly broad
definitions of bullying: Implications for the schoolhouse, the Statehouse, and the Ivory
Tower. Journal of School Violence, 13(3), 253–276.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2013.846861
Cassedy, J. G. (1997). African Americans and the American labor movement. Prologue: Special
Issue on Federal Records and African American History, 29(2).
www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1997/summer/american-labor-movement.html

221
Celniker, J., Ringel, M. M., Nelson, K., & Ditto, P. H. (2022). Correlates of “coddling”:
Cognitive distortions predict safetyism-inspired beliefs, belief that words can harm, and
trigger warning endorsement in college students. Personality and Individual Differences,
185, Article 111243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111243
Cenoz, J., & Gorter, D. (2017). Minority languages and sustainable translanguaging: Threat or
opportunity? Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 38(10), 901–912.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2017.1284855
Cepeda-Mayorga, I. (2017). “Political correctness” from a “border reason”: Between dignity and
the shadow of exclusion. Philosophies, 2(4), Article 13.
https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies2020013
Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. Sage.
Chow, A. R. (2021, October 15). Breaking down the controversy around Dave Chappelle’s
Netflix special The Closer. TIME. https://time.com/6105951/dave-chappelle-netflixcontroversy/
Chung, M. C., & Shakra, M. A. (2020). The association between trauma centrality and
posttraumatic stress among Syrian refugees: The impact of cognitive distortions and
trauma-coping self-efficacy. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(3-4), 1852–1877.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260520926311
Chun Tie, Y., Birks, M., & Francis, K. (2019). Grounded theory research: A design framework
for novice researchers. SAGE Open Medicine, 7(1), 1–8.
https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312118822927

222
Clark, M. (2021, July 26). How cancel culture became politicized — Just like political
correctness. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2021/07/09/1014744289/cancel-culture-debatehas-early-90s-roots-political-correctness
Clarke, K., Cooper, P., & Creswell, C. (2015). The parental overprotection scale: Associations
with child and parental anxiety. Journal of Affective Disorders, 151(2), 618–624.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2013.07.007
Clements, K., & Schumacher, J. A. (2010). Perceptual biases in social cognition as potential
moderators of the relationship between alcohol and intimate partner violence: A review.
Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15(5), 357–368.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2010.06.004
Coetzee, J. M. (2018). Giving offense: Essays on censorship. University of Chicago Press.
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Los Angeles. (2022). Cognitive distortions: Overgeneralizing.
https://cogbtherapy.com/cbt-blog/cognitive-distortions-overgeneralizing
Cohen, G. A. (2003). The structure of proletarian unfreedom. Philosophy & Public Affairs,
12(1), 3–33. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2265026
Confessore, N. (2023, December 10). As fury erupts over campus antisemitism, conservatives
seize the moment. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/us/universities-antisemitism-conservativesliberals.html
Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and
evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology, 13(1), 3–21.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00988593

223
Covin, R., Dozois, D. J. A., Ogniewicz, A., & Seeds, P. M. (2011). Measuring cognitive errors:
Initial development of the Cognitive Distortions Scale (CDS). International Journal of
Cognitive Therapy, 4(3), 297–322. https://doi.org/10.1521/ijct.2011.4.3.297
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches. Sage Publications.
Curran, T., & Hill, A. (2018, January 26). Perfectionism is increasing, and that’s not good news.
Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2018/01/perfectionism-is-increasing-and-thatsnot-good-news
Dakin, B. C., Tan, N. P., Conner, T. S., & Bastian, B. (2022). The relationship between
prosociality, meaning, and happiness in everyday life. Journal of Happiness Studies,
23(6), 2787–2804. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-022-00526-1
Dannefer, D. (2000). Paradox of opportunity. The Gerontologist, 40(3), 282–286.
https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/40.3.282
Davies, M. (2014). A model of critical thinking in higher education. In M. B. Paulsen (Eds.),
Higher education: Handbook of theory and research, (Vol. 30, pp. 41–92). Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-12835-1_2
Davis, F. (1999). Moving the mountain: The women’s movement in America since 1960.
University of Illinois Press.
Davis, L. J. (2002). Bending over backwards: Essays on disability and the body. NYU Press.
De Castella, K., Byrne, D., & Covington, M. (2019). Unmotivated or motivated to fail? A crosscultural study of achievement motivation, fear of failure, and student disengagement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 861–880. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032464

224
Degand, L., Spooren, W., & Bestgen, Y. (2004, July 25–26). On the use of automatic tools for
large scale semantic analyses of causal connectives [Paper presentation]. ACL Workshop
on Discourse Annotation, Barcelona, Spain. https://doi.org/10.3115/1608938.1608942
De Genova, N. P. (2002). Migrant “illegality” and deportability in everyday life. Annual Review
of Anthropology, 31(1), 419–447.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.anthro.31.040402.085432
Diamond, L. M. (2020). Gender fluidity and nonbinary gender identities among children and
adolescents. Child Development Perspectives, 14(2), 110–115.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12366
Dias, D. (2023). Excessive language on Twitter. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 124(1), 128–
148. https://doi.org/10.51814/nm.122704
Dimidjian, S., Hollon, S. D., Dobson, K. S., Schmaling, K. B., Kohlenberg, R. J., Addis, M. E.,
Gallop, R., McGlinchey, J. B., Markley, D. K., Gollan, J. K., Atkins, D. C., Dunner, D.
L., & Jacobson, N. S. (2006). Randomized trial of behavioral activation, cognitive
therapy, and antidepressant medication in the acute treatment of adults with major
depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(4), 658–670.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.4.658
Doherty, C. (2016, June 22). Partisanship and political animosity in 2016 [Press release]. Pew
Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/wpcontent/uploads/sites/4/2016/06/06-22-16-Partisanship-and-animosity-release.pdf
Douglas, T.-R., & Nganga, C. (2015). What’s radical love got to do with it: Navigating identity,
pedagogy, and positionality in pre-service education. The International Journal of
Critical Pedagogy, 6(1), 58–82. https://libjournal.uncg.edu/ijcp/article/view/237

225
Dudenhoefer, N. (2020). Is cancel culture effective? Pegasus Magazine.
https://www.ucf.edu/pegasus/is-cancel-culture-effective/
Dutton, R. (2022). Mastering the revels: The regulation and censorship of early modern drama.
Oxford University Press.
Easter, M. (2021). The comfort crisis: embrace discomfort to reclaim your wild, happy, healthy
self (1st ed.). Rodale Books.
Edwards, C. W. (2019). Overcoming imposter syndrome and stereotype threat:
Reconceptualizing the definition of a scholar. Communications on Stochastic Analysis,
18(1). https://doi.org/10.31390/taboo.18.1.03
Ekins, E. (2017, October 31). The state of free speech and tolerance in America. Cato Institute.
https://www.cato.org/survey-reports/state-free-speech-tolerance-america#overview
Ellis, A., Davis, D., & Lynn, S. J. (2010). Rational and irrational beliefs: A historical and
conceptual perspective. In D. David, S. J. Lynn, & A. Ellis (Ed.), Rational and irrational
beliefs: Research, theory, and clinical practice (pp. 3–11). Oxford University Press.
Ely, R. J., Meyerson, D., & Davidson, M. N. (2006, September 1). Rethinking political
correctness. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2006/09/rethinking-politicalcorrectness
Erdag, C. (2017). Accountability policies at schools: A study of path analysis. Educational
Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17(4), 1405–1432. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1148382
Fattoracci, E. S. M., & King, D. D. (2022). The need for understanding and addressing
microaggressions in the workplace. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(4), 728–
742. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916221133825

226
Fazakas-DeHoog, L., Rnic, K., & Dozois, D. (2017). A cognitive distortions and deficits model
of suicide ideation. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 13(2), 178–193.
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v13i2.1238
Fingerhut, H. (2016, July 20). In “political correctness” debate, most Americans think too many
people are easily offended. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/shortreads/2016/07/20/in-political-correctness-debate-most-americans-think-too-many-peopleare-easily-offended/
Fischhoff, B., Slovic, P., Lichtenstein, S., Read, S., & Combs, B. (1978). How safe is safe
enough? A psychometric study of attitudes towards technological risks and benefits.
Policy Sciences, 9(2), 127–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00143739
Fisse, B. (1995). Corporations, crime and accountability. Current Issues in Criminal Justice,
6(3), 378–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.1995.12036668
Fitzgerald, R., & Jordan, D. (2024, January 16). University adopts statement on diversity of
thought, freedom of speech. The University Record. https://record.umich.edu/articles/um-adopts-statement-on-diversity-of-thought-freedom-of-speech/
Fleurbaey, M. (1995). Equal opportunity or equal social outcome? Economics and Philosophy,
11(1), 25–55. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266267100003217
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. (2021). College free speech rankings: What’s
the climate for free speech on America’s college campuses?
https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2021/09/24110044/2021-CFSR-Report-v2.pdf
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. (2022a). The 2022–2023 college free speech
rankings. https://www.thefire.org/news/just-released-2022-2023-college-free-speechrankings

227
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. (2022b). The academic mind in 2022: What
faculty think about free expression and academic freedom on campus.
https://www.thefire.org/research-learn/academic-mind-2022-what-faculty-think-aboutfree-expression-and-academic-freedom#fn68
Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. (2024). Spotlight on speech codes 2024.
https://www.thefire.org/sites/default/files/2024/01/Speech%20Code%20Report_2024_fin
al.pdf
Frank, S., & Ristic, M. (2020). Urban fallism. City, 24(3-4), 552–564.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13604813.2020.1784578
Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017).
Psychological Safety: A Meta-Analytic Review and Extension. Personnel
Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183
Freling, T. H., Yang, Z., Saini, R., Itani, O. S., & Rashad Abualsamh, R. (2020). When poignant
stories outweigh cold hard facts: A meta-analysis of the anecdotal bias. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 160, 51–67.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2020.01.006
Frericks, P. (2015). Social inequality and leading principles in welfare states: The impact of
institutional marketization, fragmentation and equalization on social structure.
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Fridman, L. (2023). Greg Lukianoff: Cancel culture, deplatforming, censorship & free speech |
Lex Fridman Podcast #397 [Video]. YouTube.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buarAx_u2qg&t=76s

228
Furedi, F. (2016). What’s happened to the university?: A sociological exploration of its
infantilisation. Taylor & Francis.
Gallop, J. (2002). Anecdotal theory. Duke University Press.
Garand, L., Lingler, J. H., Conner, K. O., & Dew, M. A. (2009). Diagnostic labels, stigma, and
participation in research related to dementia and mild cognitive impairment. Research in
Gerontological Nursing, 2(2), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.3928/19404921-20090401-04
Gilbert, P. (1998). The evolved basis and adaptive functions of cognitive distortions. The British
Journal of Medical Psychology, 71(4), 447–463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
8341.1998.tb01002.x
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. Routledge.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (2017). Discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research [e-book]. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203793206
Glaser, B. G. (1999). The future of grounded theory. Qualitative Health Research, 9(6), 836–
845. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973299129122199
Goetz, A. M. (1995). Institutionalizing women’s interests and accountability to women in
development. IDS Bulletin, 26(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1759-
5436.1995.mp26003001.x
González Zarandona, J. A. (2015). Towards a theory of landscape iconoclasm. Cambridge
Archaeological Journal, 25(2), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0959774314001024
Gramlich, J. (2020, March 2). How border apprehensions, ICE arrests and deportations have
changed under Trump. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-

229
reads/2020/03/02/how-border-apprehensions-ice-arrests-and-deportations-have-changedunder-trump/
Grant, C., & Osanloo, A. (2014). Understanding, selecting, and integrating a theoretical
framework in dissertation research: Creating the blueprint for your “house.”
Administrative Issues Journal Education Practice and Research, 4(2), 12–26.
https://doi.org/10.5929/2014.4.2.9
Green, D. E. (2015). On “The Coddling of the American Mind.” Augsburg College.
https://hcommons.org/deposits/download/mla:218/CONTENT/coddling.pdf/
Greer, C., & Reiner, R. (2014). Labelling, deviance, and media. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd
(Eds), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice. Springer.
https://link.springer.com/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-5690-2_181
Grimes, C. (2020). A matter of interpretation: Examining the coded meanings of “safe space” in
higher education communities [Unpublished master’s thesis]. Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State University. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.19098.88003
Gunderson, E. A., Gripshover, S. J., Romero, C., Dweck, C. S., Goldin-Meadow, S., & Levine,
S. C. (2013). Parent praise to 1- to 3-year-olds predicts children’s motivational
frameworks 5 years later. Child Development, 84(5), 1526–1541.
https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12064
Gunkel, M., Schlaegel, C., & Taras, V. (2016). Cultural values, emotional intelligence, and
conflict handling styles: A global study. Journal of World Business, 51(4), 568–585.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jwb.2016.02.001
Haferkamp, H., & Smelser, N. J. (Eds.). (2020). Social change and modernity. University of
California Press. https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6000078s

230
Hahn, R. A. (1997). The nocebo phenomenon: Concept, evidence, and implications for public
health. Preventive Medicine, 26(5), 607–611. https://doi.org/10.1006/pmed.1996.0124
Haidt, J., & Lukianoff, G. (2021, January 27). Controversial speeches on campus are not
violence. The Atlantic.
Haller, H., & Hoyer, B. (2019). The common enemy effect under strategic network formation
and disruption. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 162, 146–163.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2019.03.011
Hamilton, C. (2015, August 30). Political correctness: Its origins and the backlash against it.
The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/political-correctness-its-origins-and-thebacklash-against-it-46862
Han, Y. (2019). The impact of accountability deficit on agency performance: Performanceaccountability regime. Public Management Review, 22(6), 927–948.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1679237
Harper, C. A., Purser, H., & Baguley, T. (2022). Do concepts creep to the left and the right?
Evidence for ideologically salient concept breadth judgments across the political
spectrum. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 14(3), 319–332.
https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506221104643
Harrison, P., & Huchzermeyer, M. (2003). Confronting fragmentation: Housing and urban
development in a democratising society. Juta and Company.
Haslam, N. (2016). Concept creep: Psychology’s expanding concepts of harm and pathology.
Psychological Inquiry, 27(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2016.1082418

231
Hedayatifar, L., Rigg, R. A., Bar-Yam, Y., & Morales, A. J. (2019). US social fragmentation at
multiple scales. Journal of the Royal Society, Interface, 16(159), 20190509.
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2019.0509
Hennink, M., Kaiser, B. N., & Marconi, V. C. (2016). Code saturation versus meaning
saturation. Qualitative Health Research, 27(4), 591–608.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732316665344
Henry, I. P. (2022). Processes of political, cultural, and social fragmentation: changes in the
macro-environment of sport policy and management: c.1980–c.2022. European Sport
Management Quarterly, 22(5), 705–725.
https://doi.org/10.1080/16184742.2022.2046122
Hoeken, H., & Hustinx, L. (2009). When is statistical evidence superior to anecdotal evidence in
supporting probability claims? The role of argument type. Human Communication
Research, 35(4), 491–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01360.x
Hofmann, S. G. (2015). Perception of control over anxiety mediates the relation between
catastrophic thinking and social anxiety in social phobia. Behaviour Research and
Therapy, 43(7), 885–895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2004.07.002
Hooks, A. M. (2020). Cancel culture: posthuman hauntologies in digital rhetoric and the latent
values of virtual community networks [Unpublished master’s thesis]. The University of
Tennessee at Chattanooga.
Hornikx, J. (2005). A review of experimental research on the relative persuasiveness of
anecdotal, statistical, causal, and expert evidence. Studies in Communication Sciences,
5(1), 205–216.

232
Horwitz, R. B. (2018). Politics as victimhood, victimhood as Politics. Journal of Policy History,
30(3), 552–574. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0898030618000209
Hunt, L. (2002). Against presentism. Perspectives on History.
https://www.historians.org/research-and-publications/perspectives-on-history/may2002/against-presentism
Irmak, C., Murdock, M. R., & Kanuri, V. K. (2020). When consumption regulations backfire:
The role of political ideology. Journal of Marketing Research, 57(5), 966–984.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0022243720919709
Jean, L. (2021). Iconoclasm, monuments, art: Stacy Boldrick interviewed by Lily Jean. Journal
of Philosophy of Education, 55(3), 498–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12591
Ji, H., & Knight, K. (2018, August 1). Creative language encoding under censorship.
Association for Computational Linguistics. https://aclanthology.org/W18-4203/
Jones, B. J. M. (2024, February 7). U.S. party preferences evenly split in 2022 after shift to GOP
[Blog post]. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/467897/party-preferences-evenly-split2022-shift-gop.aspx
Jones, D. (2001). Censorship: A world encyclopedia. Routledge.
Jones, P., & McNally, R. (2022). Does broadening one’s concept of trauma undermine
resilience? Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 14(S1),
S131–S139. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0001063
Jones, P. J., Bellet, B. W., & McNally, R. J. (2020). Helping or harming? The effect of trigger
warnings on individuals with trauma histories. Clinical Psychological Science, 8(5), 905–
917. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702620921341

233
Jones, R. P., Cox, D., Griffin, R., Najle, M., Fisch-Friedman, M., & Vandermaas-Peeler, A.
(2018). Partisan polarization dominates Trump era: Findings from the 2018 American
Values Survey. Public Religion Research Institute. https://www.prri.org/research/partisanpolarization-dominates-trump-era-findings-from-the-2018-american-values-survey/
Jost, J. T., Baldassarri, D. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2022). Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of
political polarization in social-communicative contexts. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1,
560–576. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-022-00093-5
Judith, H. (2008). Grounded theory as a general research methodology. Grounded Theory
Review, 7(2). https://groundedtheoryreview.com/2008/06/30/grounded-theory-as-ageneral-research-methodology/
Julion, W., Reed, M., Bounds, D. T., Cothran, F., Gamboa, C., & Sumo, J. (2019). A group think
tank as a discourse coalition to promote minority nursing faculty retention. Nursing
Outlook, 67(5), 586–595. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2019.03.003
Kapp, P. H. (2020). Conservation, tradition and popular iconoclasm in North America. The
Historic Environment, 12(1), 97–115. https://doi.org/10.1080/17567505.2020.1810501
Katarina, N. (2022). A dangerous pursuit of safety: The value of freedom of expression and the
folly of trading it away [Unpublished honor scholar thesis] DePauw University.
https://scholarship.depauw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1188&context=studentresear
ch
Katsikas, A. (2015, January 13). Same performance, better grades. The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/01/same-performance-bettergrades/384447/

234
Kaveladze, B. T., Young, S. D., & Schueller, S. M. (2021). Antifragile behavior change through
digital health behavior change interventions. JMIR Formative Research, 6(6).
https://doi.org/10.2196/32571
Kerr, J., Panagopoulos, C., & van der Linden, S. (2021). Political polarization on COVID-19
pandemic response in the United States. Personality and Individual Differences, 179,
Article 110892. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.110892
Kimble, M., Boxwala, M., Bean, W., Maletsky, K., Halper, J., Spollen, K., & Fleming, K.
(2018). The impact of hypervigilance: Evidence for a forward feedback loop. Journal of
Anxiety Disorders, 28(2), 241–245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2013.12.006
Knox, L. (2023, April 27). North Dakota quietly enacts first anti-DEI law. Inside Higher Ed.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2023/04/27/north-dakota-quietlyenacts-first-anti-dei-law
Koganzon, R. (2024, March 21). The coddling of the American undergraduate. The Chronicle of
Higher Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/the-coddling-of-the-americanundergraduate
Koops, B.-J. (2021). The concept of function creep. Law, Innovation and Technology, 13(1), 29–
56. https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2021.1898299
Kuipers, E. (2006). Cognitive, emotional, and social processes in psychosis: Refining cognitive
behavioral therapy for persistent positive symptoms. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 32(Suppl.
1), S24–S31. https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbl014
Kuokkanen, S. (2020). Ostracism, inner change, and the dynamics of reintegration in classical
Athens. Pallas, 112, 67–91. https://doi.org/10.4000/pallas.21077

235
Kutsyuruba, B., Klinger, D. A., & Hussain, A. (2015). Relationships among school climate,
school safety, and student achievement and well-being: A review of the literature. Review
of Education, 3(2), 103–135. https://doi.org/10.1002/rev3.3043
Lam, D. C. K. (2008). Cognitive behaviour therapy: A practical guide to helping people take
control. Routledge.
Lambert, L., Draper, Z. A., Warren, M. A., Joshanloo, M., Chiao, E.-L., Schwam, A., & Arora,
T. (2021). Conceptions of happiness matter: Relationships between fear and fragility of
happiness and mental and physical wellbeing. Journal of Happiness Studies, 23, 535–
560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-021-00413-1
Land, M. K., & Aronson, J. D. (2020). Human rights and technology: New challenges for justice
and accountability. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 16(1), 223–240.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-060220-081955
Langlois, K. (2023). Middle East Scholar Barometer co-directed by Shibley Telhami and Marc
Lynch. University of Maryland.
https://criticalissues.umd.edu/sites/criticalissues.umd.edu/files/November%202023%20M
ESB%20Results.pdf
Lawson, T., & Comber, C. (2016). Censorship, the Internet and schools: A new moral panic?
Curriculum Journal, 11(2), 273–285. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170050045236
Lea, J. (2010). Political correctness and higher education: British and American perspectives.
Routledge.
Leder, G. (2016). Know thyself? Questioning the theoretical foundations of cognitive behavioral
therapy. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 8(2), 391–410.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13164-016-0308-1

236
Lee, C. H. (2014). Public perceptions of minorities in America: Political correctness in US
History textbooks, before and after 1970. International Journal of Social Science and
Humanity, 4(3), 233–237. https://doi.org/10.7763/IJSSH.2014.V4.353
Lee, Y. (2019). Groupthink as a system of the decision making process. NYU Steinhardt School
of Culture, Education, and Human Development. https://wp.nyu.edu/steinhardtappsych_opus/groupthink/
Leibold, J., & Polavin, N. (2023). The rise of safetyism is influencing verdicts. IMS Consulting &
Expert Services. https://www.expertservices.com/insight/safetyism-influencing-verdicts/
Lelkes, Y. (2016). Mass polarization: Manifestations and measurements. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 80(S1), 392–410. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfw005
Limerick, N. (2011). Geoffrey Hughes, Political correctness: A history of semantics and culture.
Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2010. Pp. viii, 320. Pb. $34.95. Language in Society, 40(5),
673–674. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404511000820
Lindblom, T. (2022). Growing openness or creeping intolerance? Cultural taste orientations and
tolerant social attitudes in Finland, 2007–2018. Poetics, 93, Article 101663.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2022.101663
Lindley, L., & Galupo, M. P. (2020). Gender dysphoria and minority stress: Support for
inclusion of gender dysphoria as a proximal stressor. Psychology of Sexual Orientation
and Gender Diversity, 7(3), 265–275. https://doi.org/10.1037/sgd0000439
Little, W., & McGivern, R. (2014, November 6). Introduction to sociology – 1st Canadian
edition. BCCampus. https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontosociology/chapter/chapter1-anintroduction-to-sociology/

237
Littman, L. (2018). Parent reports of adolescents and young adults perceived to show signs of a
rapid onset of gender dysphoria. PLoS One, 13(8), Article e0202330.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202330
Liu, H., & Xia, H. (2016). Workplace ostracism: A review and directions for future research.
Journal of Human Resource and Sustainability Studies, 4(3), 197–201.
https://doi.org/10.4236/jhrss.2016.43022
Lloyd, C., & Hannikainen, M. (2022). Social cohesion and welfare states: From fragmentation
to social peace. Taylor & Francis.
Louie, E. W. (2008). Chinese American names: Tradition and transition. McFarland.
Loury, G. C. (2018). Self-censorship in public discourse: A theory of “political correctness” and
related phenomena. Brown University.
https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Economics/Faculty/Glenn_Loury/louryhomepage/p
apers/Loury%20(Politcal%20Correctness)_02.pdf
Lubbers, M., & Coenders, M. (2017). Nationalistic attitudes and voting for the radical right in
Europe. European Union Politics, 18(1), 98–118.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116516678932
Lukianoff, G. (2023, September 25). The new Red Scare taking over America’s college
campuses. Washington Examiner.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/beltway-confidential/2743162/the-newred-scare-taking-over-americas-college-campuses/
Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2015, September). The coddling of the American mind. The Atlantic.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-americanmind/399356/

238
Lukianoff, G., & Haidt, J. (2018). The coddling of the American mind: How good intentions and
bad ideas are setting up a generation for failure. Penguin.
Lukianoff, G., & Schlott, R. (2023). The canceling of the American mind: Cancel culture
undermines trust and threatens us all—but there is a solution. Simon and Schuster.
Lumley, M. A., Cohen, J. L., Borszcz, G. S., Cano, A., Radcliffe, A. M., Porter, L. S., Schubiner,
H., & Keefe, F. J. (2021). Pain and emotion: A biopsychosocial review of recent
research. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 67(9), 942–968.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20816
Luo, X., He, M., & Yu, Z. (2021). An ideological analysis of the former president Donald
Trump’s tweets during COVID-19. Corpus Pragmatics: International Journal of Corpus
Linguistics and Pragmatics, 6, 23–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41701-021-00113-4
Luthar, S. S., Barkin, S. H., & Crossman, E. J. (2019). “I can, therefore I must”: Fragility in the
upper-middle classes. Development and Psychopathology, 25(4pt2), 1529–1549.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579413000758
The Mac Weekly. (2015, April 10). Discussing tough topics: The concept of victim privilege.
Macalester College. https://themacweekly.com/68675/opinion/discussing-tough-topicsthe-concept-of-victim-privilege/
Magnani, L. (2016). Political correctness between wise stoicism and violent hypocrisy.
Philosophies, 1(3), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.3390/philosophies1030261
Maguire, A., & O’Reilly, D. (2010). P58 The death of social fragmentation: A secondary
analysis of health survey data. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health,
64(Suppl 1), A56. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2010.120477.58

239
Maheshwari, S. (1983). Accountability in public administration: Towards a conceptual
framework. The Indian Journal of Public Administration, 29(3), 457–472.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0019556119830303
Malena, C., Forster, R., Singh, J., & Singh, J. (2004). Social accountability: An introduction to
the concept and emerging practice. Stichting IRC International Water and Sanitation
Centre. https://www.ircwash.org/resources/social-accountability-introduction-conceptand-emerging-practice
Malik, F., & Marwaha, R. (2022, September 18). Developmental stages of social emotional
development in children. National Library of Medicine.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK534819/
Malinda, A., Roza, Y., & Maimunah, M. (2022). Critical thinking ability of junior high school
students in solving mathematics questions of the national science competition. Jurnal
Pendidikan Matematika, 5(2), 187–193. https://doi.org/10.30598/jupitekvol5iss2pp187-
193
Marinovic, I., Cianciaruso, D., & Guttman, I. (2022). Cancel culture and social learning (IDEAS
Working Paper). Research Papers in Economics. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4011359
Martinez-Acosta, V. G., & Favero, C. B. (2018). A discussion of diversity and inclusivity at the
institutional level: The need for a strategic plan. Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience
Education, 16(3), A252–A260.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6153014/
Maruna, S., & Mann, R. E. (2006). A fundamental attribution error? Rethinking cognitive
distortions. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 11(2), 155–177.
https://doi.org/10.1348/135532506X114608

240
Marwick, A., Clancy, B., & Furl, K. (2022). Far-right online radicalization: A review of the
literature. Center for Information, Technology, and Public Life.
https://doi.org/10.21428/bfcb0bff.e9492a11
Mason, R. (2016, September 16). Theresa May criticises university “safe spaces” for shutting
down debate. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/sep/14/theresa-may-criticises-universitysafe-spaces-for-shutting-down-debate
Mathison, Y. (2017). Growing up Asian American in young adult fiction. University Press of
Mississippi.
Maxwell, J. A. (2004). Causal explanation, qualitative research, and scientific inquiry in
education. Educational Researcher, 33(2), 3–11.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033002003
Maxwell, J. A. (2012). The importance of qualitative research for causal explanation in
education. Qualitative Inquiry, 18(8), 655–661.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800412452856
McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society. (2023). Equality of outcome. Stanford University.
https://edeq.stanford.edu/sections/section-1-equality-opportunity-andalternatives/equality-outcome
McGrath, K. F., & Van Bergen, P. (2015). Who, when, why and to what end? Students at risk of
negative student–teacher relationships and their outcomes. Educational Research Review,
14(14), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.12.001

241
McGrath, M., & Haslam, N. (2020). Development and validation of the harm concept breadth
scale: Assessing individual differences in harm inflation. PLoS One, 15(8), e0237732.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0237732
McTernan, E. (2021). Taking offense: An emotion reconsidered. Philosophy & Public Affairs,
49(2), 179–208. https://doi.org/10.1111/papa.12188
Meissner, B. (2015, January 12). Warning signs and risk factors [Blog post]. Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration. https://www.samhsa.gov/find-help/disasterdistress-helpline/warning-signs-risk-factors
Meldon, P. (2017). Disability history: The disability rights movement. U.S. National Park
Service. https://www.nps.gov/articles/disabilityhistoryrightsmovement.htm
Merriam, S. B., & Simpson, B. L. (2000). Merriam, S. B. & Simpson, E. L. (2000). A guide to
research for educators and trainers of adults (2nd ed.). Krieger.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research. A guide to design and
implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Mervosh, S. (2022, September 1). The pandemic erased two decades of progress in math and
reading. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/us/national-testscores-math-reading-pandemic.html
Meyer, P. H. (2020, November 30). Political ideology and black-and-white thinking
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Northwest University.
https://archives.northwestu.edu/handle/nu/57386
Mina, A. X. (2019). Memes to movements: How the world’s most viral media is changing social
protest and power. Beacon Press.

242
Mitchell, T. (2021, January 29). How America changed during Donald Trump’s presidency. Pew
Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/2021/01/29/how-america-changedduring-donald-trumps-presidency/#fn-383636-1
Mitts, T., Pisharody, N., & Shapiro, J. (2022, June 26–29). Removal of anti-vaccine content
impacts social media discourse [Paper presentation]. 14th ACM Web Science
Conference, Barcelona, Spain. https://doi.org/10.1145/3501247.3531548
Moller, D. (2018). Dilemmas of political correctness. Journal of Practical Ethics, 4(1).
https://www.jpe.ox.ac.uk/papers/dilemmas-of-political-correctness/
Moorhead, L., & Jiménez, J. (2021). ‘This is me’: Expressions of intersecting identity in an
lgbtq+ ethnic studies course. Journal of Social Studies Research, 45(1), 35–57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssr.2020.04.003
Morrison, A. S., & Heimberg, R. G. (2013). Social anxiety and social anxiety disorder. Annual
Review of Clinical Psychology, 9(1), 249–274. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy050212-185631
Morrison, B. (2017). Restoring safe school communities: A whole school response to bullying,
violence and alienation. Federation Press.
Moss, J. T., & O’Connor, P. J. (2020). Political correctness and the alt-right: The development of
extreme political attitudes. PLoS One, 15(10), Article e0239259.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239259
Müller, B. (2004). Censorship and cultural regulation: Mapping the territory. In B. Müller (Ed.),
Censorship & cultural regulation in the modern age (pp. 1–31). Brill.
https://brill.com/downloadpdf/book/edcoll/9789401200950/B9789401200950-s001.pdf

243
Murphy, E., Dingwall, R., Greatbatch, D., Parker, S., & Watson, P. (1999). Qualitative research
methods in health technology assessment: A review of the literature. Health Technology
Assessment, 2(16). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta2160
Naeem, M., Ozuem, W., Howell, K. E., & Ranfagni, S. (2023). A step-by-step process of
thematic analysis to develop a conceptual model in qualitative research. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069231205789
Nakao, M., Shirotsuki, K., & Sugaya, N. (2021). Cognitive–behavioral therapy for management
of mental health and stress-related disorders: Recent advances in techniques and
technologies. BioPsychoSocial Medicine, 15, Article 16. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13030-
021-00219-w
National Center for Education Statistics. (1997). Public and private schools: How do they differ?
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs97/97983.pdf
Niasse, N. (2023). Limiting misleading ideas about the history of grounded theory methodology.
International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 22.
https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221149486
Nielson, E. (2018, August 10). If we silence hate speech, will we silence resistance? The New
York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/09/opinion/if-we-silence-hate-speechwill-we-silence-resistance.html
Ninio, A., & Bruner, J. (1978). The achievement and antecedents of labelling. Journal of Child
Language, 5(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900001896
Noble, T. F. X. (2012). Images, iconoclasm, and the Carolingians. University of Pennsylvania
Press.

244
Nolan, H. A., & Roberts, L. (2023). Trigger warnings as tools for learning—Theorising an
evolving cultural concept. Medical Education, 58(2), 185–195.
https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.15172
Norris, P. (2020, August 3). Closed minds? Is a “cancel culture” Stifling academic freedom and
intellectual debate in political science? (HKS Working Paper No. RWP20-025). Harvard
Kennedy School. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3671026
Norris, P. (2021). Cancel culture: Myth or reality? Political Studies, 71(1), 145–174.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00323217211037023
Nowell, L., Norris, J. M., White, D., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis. International
Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
NPR & Marist Institute for Public Opinion. (2018). Americans don’t want to be politically
correct. https://maristpoll.marist.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/NPR_PBSNewsHour_Marist-Poll_USA-NOS-and-Tables_Civility_1812051719.pdf#page=3
Offidani-Bertrand, C. (2023). “It unleashed all the worries we tried to calm down”: The Trump
administration’s impact on the mental health of immigrant communities. SSM. Mental
Health, 3(1), Article 100207. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmmh.2023.100207
Orazani, S., Wohl, M. J. A., & Leidner, B. (2020). Perceived normalization of radical ideologies
and its effect on political tolerance and support for freedom of speech. Group Processes
& Intergroup Relations, 23(8), 1150–1170. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220943265
Orwell, G. (2021). Nineteen eighty-four. Penguin Classics. (Original work published 1949)
Oshio, A. (2012). An all-or-nothing thinking turns into darkness: Relations between dichotomous
thinking and personality disorders1. The Japanese Psychological Research, 54(4), 424–
429. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5884.2012.00515.x

245
Packer, D., & Bavel, J. V. (2022). The myth of tribalism.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/tribalism-myth-group-solidarityprejudice-conflict/621008/
Parker, C. (2015, April 29). Perseverance key to children’s intellectual growth, Stanford scholar
says. Stanford News. https://news.stanford.edu/2015/04/29/dweck-kids-potential-042915/
Parry, K. (1998). Grounded theory and social process: A new direction for leadership research.
The Leadership Quarterly, 9(1), 85–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1048-9843(98)90043-1
Patel, V. (2024, February 1). Utah bans D.E.I. programs, joining other states. The New York
Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/01/us/states-anti-dei-laws-utah.html
Penguin Books Limited. (2018, November 2). 12 essential George Orwell quotes about freedom.
https://www.penguin.co.uk/articles/2018/11/12-essential-george-owell-quotes-aboutfreedom-liberty
Pew Research Center. (2013, March 12). Section 1: Views of stricter gun laws.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2013/03/12/section-1-views-of-stricter-gun-laws/
Pew Research Center. (2015, December 17). Parenting in America.
Phttps://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2015/12/17/parenting-in-america/
Pew Research Center. (2017, July 26). Terrorism and concerns about extremism.
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2017/07/26/terrorism-and-concerns-aboutextremism/
Pew Research Center. (2018, April 26). 8. The tone of political debate, compromise with
political opponents. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/04/26/8-the-tone-ofpolitical-debate-compromise-with-political-opponents/

246
Pew Research Center. (2019, June 19). Public highly critical of state of political discourse in the
U.S. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/06/19/public-highly-critical-of-state-ofpolitical-discourse-in-the-u-s/#large-shares-have-negative-reactions-to-what-trump-says
Pew Research Center. (2020, January 9). Views of U.S. Economic Inequality.
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2020/01/09/views-of-economic-inequality/
Phillips, T. J., & Snodgrass, L. L. (2022). Who’s got the power: Systems, culture, and influence
in higher education change leadership. Journal of Higher Education Policy and
Leadership Studies, 3(2), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.52547/johepal.3.2.7
Pinker, S. (2018). Enlightenment now: The case for reason, science, humanism, and progress.
Penguin.
Poggi, I., & D’Errico, F. (2018). Feeling offended: A blow to our image and our social
relationships. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 2221.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02221
Polat Hüsrevşahi, S. (2021). The reasons for and results of ostracism at schools and
recommendations for solutions through teacher experiences. International Journal of
Progressive Education, 17(3), 202–215. https://doi.org/10.29329/ijpe.2021.346.13
Prochaska, J. O., & Norcross, J. C. (2018). Systems of psychotherapy: A transtheoretical
analysis. Oxford University Press.
Quarles, C. L., & Bozarth, L. (2022). How the term “white privilege” affects participation,
polarization, and content in online communication. PLoS One, 17(5), Article e0267048.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267048

247
Quilantan, B. (2023, December 5). The free speech fallout from the Israel-Hamas war could be
dire. POLITICO. https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2023/12/05/free-speechcampus-00130076
Quinn, R. (2023, October 9). Free speech: UChicago, Heterodox, Jordan Peterson, Hamline?
Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/faculty-issues/academicfreedom/2023/10/09/free-speech-uchicago-heterodox-jordan-peterson
Rabinovich, M., & Kacen, L. (2009). Let’s look at the elephant: Metasynthesis of transference
case studies for psychodynamic and cognitive psychotherapy integration. Psychology and
Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice, 82(4), 427–447.
https://doi.org/10.1348/147608309X459662
Radford-Hill, S. (2000). Further to fly: Black women and the politics of empowerment.
University of Minnesota Press.
Radovic, A., Gmelin, T., Stein, B. D., & Miller, E. (2017). Depressed adolescents’ positive and
negative use of social media. Journal of Adolescence, 55(1), 5–15.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.12.002
Ramsey, J., & Spencer, A. L. (2019). Interns and imposter syndrome: Proactively addressing
resilience. Medical Education, 53(5), 504–505. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.13852
Raybeck, D. (1991). Deviance, labelling theory and the concept of scale. Anthropologica,
33(1/2), 17–38. https://doi.org/10.2307/25605599
Reinhart, R. (2018, October 17). Six in 10 Americans support stricter gun laws. Gallup.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/243797/six-americans-support-stricter-gun-laws.aspx

248
Restar, A. (2019). Methodological critique of Littman’s (2018) parental-respondents accounts of
“rapid-onset gender dysphoria.” Archives of Sexual Behavior, 49(1), 61–66.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-1453-2
Reynolds, A. (2009, January 1). Political correctness: Issues related to speech, press, assembly,
or petition. The Free Speech Center. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/politicalcorrectness/
Riley, C. L. (2017, September 5). Oxford head wants gay students to debate homophobic
teachers. Dazed. https://www.dazeddigital.com/politics/article/37279/1/oxforduniversity-vice-chancellor-louise-richardson-homophobia-comments-students
Rnic, K., Dozois, D. J. A., & Martin, R. A. (2016). Cognitive distortions, humor styles, and
depression. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 12(3), 348–362.
https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v12i3.1118
Robinson, M. (2023, October 5). Robinson: Overturning DEI in North Carolina’s higher
education. The North State Journal. https://nsjonline.com/article/2023/10/robinsonoverturning-dei-in-north-carolinas-higher-education/
Rooney, M. (2021). Trigger archive: What is a true, impossible teaching archive? Australian
Humanities Review, 68. https://doi.org/10.56449/09680006
Rosenfield, B. (2004). Relationship between cognitive distortions and psychological disorders
across diagnostic axes [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Philadelphia College of
Osteopathic Medicine
https://digitalcommons.pcom.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1118&context=psychology
_dissertations

249
Rudaz, M., Ledermann, T., Margraf, J., Becker, E. S., & Craske, M. G. (2017). The moderating
role of avoidance behavior on anxiety over time: Is there a difference between social
anxiety disorder and specific phobia? PLoS One, 12(7), Article e0180298.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180298
Rutter Strickling, L. (2009). A rose by any other name: Female titles, Miss, Mrs., and Ms., and
the portrayal of women in The Baltimore Sun from 1958-2008. LLC Review, 9(1), 20–30.
Ruz, C. (2015, August 28). The battle over the words used to describe migrants. BBC News.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-34061097
Rydgren, J. (2007). The sociology of the radical right. Annual Review of Sociology, 33(1), 241–
262. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131752
Saad, L. (2022, January 17). U.S. political ideology steady; Conservatives, moderates tie.
Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/388988/political-ideology-steady-conservativesmoderates-tie.aspx
Salkovskis, P. M., Hackmann, A., Wells, A., Gelder, M. G., & Clark, D. M. (2007). Belief
disconfirmation versus habituation approaches to situational exposure in panic disorder
with agoraphobia: A pilot study. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45(5), 877–885.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2006.02.008
Saltzman Chafetz, J. (Ed.). (2006). Handbook of the sociology of gender (1st ed.). Springer US.
https://doi.org/10.1007/0-387-36218-5
Sampietro, H. M., Carmona, V. R., Rojo, J. E., & Gómez‐Benito, J. (2022). Mapping mad maps
and recovery tools developed by mental health service users and survivors of psychiatry:
A scoping review. BMJ Open, 12(6), Article e061692. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen2022-061692

250
Sanson, M., Strange, D., & Garry, M. (2019). Trigger warnings are trivially helpful at reducing
negative affect, intrusive thoughts, and avoidance. Clinical Psychological Science, 7(4),
778–793. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702619827018
Sari, I. A., Haryanto, H., & Yusnaidar, Y. (2022). The effect of the application of the think talk
write model and self-efficacy on students’ critical thinking ability in the material reaction
rate in SMA Adhyaksa 1 Jambi City. Jurnal Pendidikan Kimia, 14(3), 166–173.
https://doi.org/10.24114/jpkim.v14i3.39405
Scalcău, A. (2020). A historical perspective on political correctness. Management Research and
Practice, 12(4), 29–39. https://www.ceeol.com/search/article-detail?id=912066
Schaeffer, K. (2019, October 16). Share of Americans who favor stricter gun laws has increased
since 2017 [Blog post]. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/shortreads/2019/10/16/share-of-americans-who-favor-stricter-gun-laws-has-increased-since2017/
Schmader, T., & Johns, M. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working
memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 440–
452. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.440
Schneider, F., Kallis, G., & Martinez-Alier, J. (2010). Crisis or opportunity? Economic degrowth
for social equity and ecological sustainability. Introduction to this special issue. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 18(6), 511–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2010.01.014
Schroth, H. (2019). Are you ready for Gen Z in the workplace? California Management Review,
61(3), 5–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0008125619841006
Schwartz, H. S. (2010). Political and civic leadership: A reference handbook.
https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412979337

251
Schwarzer, R. (1994). Optimism, Vulnerability, and self-beliefs as health-related cognitions: A
systematic overview. Psychology & Health, 9(3), 161–180.
https://doi.org/10.1080/08870449408407475
Segall, S. (2013). Equality and opportunity. Oxford University Press.
Sesardić, N. (2007). Gay marriage: The victory of political correctness and bad arguments.
PhilArchive, 6(1), 5–28. https://philarchive.org/archive/SESHMT
Shapiro, D. L., & Fogel, M. (2019). Tribalism in the Trump era: The Societal Resilience Index.
Negotiation Journal, 35(1), 235–241. https://doi.org/10.1111/nejo.12281
Sharma, A. (2019). Managing diversity and equality in the workplace. Cogent Business &
Management, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311975.2016.1212682
Shashkevich, A. (2019, August 22). The power of language: How words shape people, culture.
Stanford News. https://news.stanford.edu/2019/08/22/the-power-of-language-how-wordsshape-people-culture/
Shen, X., & Truex, R. (2020). Search of self-censorship. British Journal of Political Science,
51(4), 1672–1684. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123419000735
Sher, A. (2024, March 6). Bill to ban DEI programs at public colleges in Tennessee killed. The
Tennessee Journal. https://pro.stateaffairs.com/tn/education/dei-higher-education
Shrier, A. (2024). Bad therapy: Why the kids aren’t growing up. Penguin Random House.
https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/716567/bad-therapy-by-abigail-shrier/
Siahaan, R., Sitorus, M., & Silaban, S. (2021). The development of teaching materials oriented to
critical thinking skills for chemistry class xi high school. Jurnal Pendidikan Kimia, 13(1),
60–68. https://doi.org/10.24114/jpkim.v13i1.24145

252
Silver, H. (2020, August 29). Cancel culture as social exclusion. The Hill.
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/514231-cancel-culture-as-social-exclusion/
Simmons, O. E. (2011). Why classic grounded theory? In Martin v. B., Gynnild A. (Eds.),
Grounded theory: The philosophy, method and work of Barney Glaser (pp. 15–30).
Brown Walker Press.
Sing, B. C. (2022). Cognitive distortions, partisan strength, and authoritarianism: Exploring
potential factors contributing to the current partisan exploring potential factors
contributing to the current partisan divide [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].
Philadelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine.
https://digitalcommons.pcom.edu/psychology_dissertations/575
Singal, J. (2016, February 8). How the fight over transgender kids got a leading sex researcher
fired. The Cut. https://www.thecut.com/2016/02/fight-over-trans-kids-got-a-researcherfired.html
Singal, J. (2018, September 26). How “coddled” are American college students, anyway?
Intelligencer. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/09/the-coddling-of-the-americanmind-and-the-culture-wars.html
Smeijers, D., Brazil, I. A., Bulten, E., & Verkes, R. J. (2018). Retrospective parental rejection is
associated with aggressive behavior as well as cognitive distortions in forensic
psychiatric outpatients. Psychology of Violence, 8(4), 495–504.
https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000134
Solórzano, D. G., & Huber, L. P. (2020). Racial microaggressions: Using critical race theory to
respond to everyday racism. Teachers College Press.

253
Soule, S. A., & King, B. G. (2006). The stages of the policy process and the Equal Rights
Amendment, 1972–1982. American Journal of Sociology, 111(6), 1871–1909.
https://doi.org/10.1086/499908
Southern Poverty Law Center. (2015). The year in hate and extremism.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2016/year-hate-andextremism
Spencer, H., & Levenson, M. (2021, July 9). Charlottesville removes Robert E. Lee statue at
center of White nationalist rally. The New York Times.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/09/us/charlottesville-confederate-monuments-lee.html
Spencer, L. G., & Kulbaga, T. A. (2018). Trigger warnings as respect for student boundaries in
university classrooms. Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, 15(1), 106–122.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15505170.2018.1438936
Spencer, M. E. (1994). Multiculturalism, “political correctness,” and the politics of identity.
Sociological Forum, 9(4), 547–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01466302
Stacy, T. C., & Adamek, B. D. (2024, January 5). New Texas law prohibiting institutions of
higher education from establishing or maintaining DEI offices is now effective. Ogletree
Deakins. https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/new-texas-law-prohibitinginstitutions-of-higher-education-from-establishing-or-maintaining-dei-offices-is-noweffective/
Stanford University. (2023). Elimination of Harmful Language Initiative.
https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/documents/stanfordlanguage.pdf

254
Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and
performance. The American Psychologist, 52(6), 613–629. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-
066X.52.6.613
Stob, P. (2013). No safe space: James Arnt Aune and the controversial classroom. Rhetoric &
Public Affairs, 16(3), 555–565. https://doi.org/10.1353/rap.2013.0034
Stollznow, K. (2020). On the offensive: Prejudice in language past and present. Cambridge
University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108866637.002
Stone, P. J. (2020). Thematic text analysis: new agendas for analyzing text content. In C. W.
Roberts (Ed.), Text analysis for the social sciences (1st ed., pp. 35–54). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003064060-3
Stradling, R. (2010). Teaching 20th-century European history. Council for Cultural Cooperation.
https://rm.coe.int/CoERMPublicCommonSearchServices/DisplayDCTMContent?docume
ntId=0900001680494235
Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory
procedures and techniques. Sage Publications.
Strossen, N. (2000). Defending pornography: Free speech, sex, and the fight for women’s rights.
NYU Press.
Štular, N. K. (2022). A dangerous pursuit of safety: the value of freedom of expression and the
folly of trading it away [Unpublished honor scholar thesis]. DePauw University.
https://scholarship.depauw.edu/studentresearch/190/

255
Subramanian, A. (2016). Teaching-learning approaches and strategies in peace education. IRA
International Journal of Education and Multidisciplinary Studies, 3(3).
https://doi.org/10.21013/jems.v3.n3.p9
Suri, H. (2011). Purposeful sampling in qualitative research synthesis. Qualitative Research
Journal, 11(2), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ1102063
Sutton, J., & Austin, Z. (2019). Qualitative research: Data collection, analysis, and management.
The Canadian Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 68(3), 226–231.
https://doi.org/10.4212/cjhp.v68i3.1456
Syal, R., & Mason, R. (2018, March 13). Jo Johnson to tell universities to stop “no-platforming”
speakers. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/dec/26/jojohnson-universities-no-platforming-freedom-of-speech
Sztajer, S. (2022). Is academic freedom under siege? University and free speech. Humaniora.
Czasopismo Internetowe, 39(3), 85–95. https://www.ceeol.com/search/articledetail?id=1120948
Taboada, M., & Lavid, J. (2003). Rhetorical and thematic patterns in scheduling dialogues.
Functions of Language, 10(2), 147–178. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.10.2.02tab
Takács, D. (2003). How does your positionality bias your epistemology? Thought & Action,
19(19), 27–38.
Takayama, K. (2021). Beyond cancel culture: Reflections on the criticisms of “comforting
histories.” Comparative Education Review, 65(4), 817–827.
https://doi.org/10.1086/716416

256
Talbot, D., & Saleme, D. (2022). Evidence of attentional bias toward body stimuli in men.
Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 84(4), 1069–1076.
https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-022-02466-7
Taleb, N. N. (2014). Antifragile: things that gain from disorder. Random House Trade
Paperbacks. https://cmc.marmot.org/Record/.b42507212
Tan, R. (2019). Changing tides, turbulent times: The discursive practices of feminism in South
Korean media and society. Culture and Empathy: International Journal of Sociology,
Psychology, and Cultural Studies, 2(1), 32–49.
https://doi.org/10.32860/26356619/2019/2.1.0004
Thagard, P. (2008). Hot thought: Mechanisms and applications of emotional cognition. MIT
Press.
Thirusanku, J., & Singh, M. K. (2021). Equal opportunity within the workplace. Economics and
Business Quarterly Reviews, 4(3).
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3925971
Thoma, N. C., & McKay, D. (2014). Working with emotion in cognitive-behavioral therapy:
Techniques for clinical practice. Guilford Publications.
Thomas Edison State University, & Sanchez, D. (2022). An introduction to social psychology.
Pressbooks. https://pressbooks.pub/introtosocialpsychology/chapter/culture/
Tibaijuka, A. (2016). Gender in local government: A sourcebook for trainers. United Nations
Human Settlements Programme.
Trechsel, L. J., Zimmermann, A., Steinböck, C., Breu, T., Herweg, K. G., & Thieme, S. (2021).
Safe spaces for disruptive learning in a north–south research partnership context:

257
International mobility of doctoral students. Sustainability, 13(4), Article 2413.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042413
Trip, S., Bora, C. H., Marian, M., Halmajan, A., & Drugas, M. I. (2019). Psychological
mechanisms involved in radicalization and extremism. A rational emotive behavioral
conceptualization. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 437.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00437
Trump, K. S. (2018). Proactive school security and emergency preparedness planning. SAGE
Publications.
Tse, S., & Tung, V. W. S. (2020). Residents’ discrimination against tourists. Annals of Tourism
Research, 88, Article 103060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annals.2020.103060
United Nations. (2019). Hate speech versus freedom of speech. https://www.un.org/en/hatespeech/understanding-hate-speech/hate-speech-versus-freedom-of-speech
University of Minnesota. (2016). Communication in the Real World: An introduction to
communication studies. https://open.lib.umn.edu/communication/
Urquhart, L., Lodge, T., & Crabtree, A. (2018). Demonstrably doing accountability in the
Internet of Things. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 27(1), 1–
27. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eay015
U.S. Department of Education. (2021). Supporting child and student social, emotional,
behavioral, and mental health needs.
https://www2.ed.gov/documents/students/supporting-child-student-social-emotionalbehavioral-mental-health.pdf
U.S. Department of Justice. (2016). Protecting the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender,
and intersex (LGBTI) individuals. https://www.justice.gov/crt/page/file/910161/download

258
Usen, S., Eneh, G., & Udom, I. (2016). Cognitive distortion as predictor of in-school
adolescents’ depressive symptoms and academic performance in South-South, Nigeria.
Journal of Education and Practice, 7(17), 23–27.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1105258.pdf
Valdez, A. (2021). Words matter: Labelling, bias and stigma in nursing. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 77(11). https://doi.org/10.1111/jan.14967
van Bavel, R., Esposito, G., Baranowski, T., & Duch‐Brown, N. (2017). Tracing how normative
messages may influence physical activity intention. Journal of Sport & Exercise
Psychology, 39(2), 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2016-0149
Van Boven, L. (2000). Pluralistic ignorance and political correctness: The case of Affirmative
Action. Political Psychology, 21(2), 267–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00187
Vigdal, J. S., & Brønnick, K. K. (2022). A systematic review of “helicopter parenting” and its
relationship with anxiety and depression. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(13), Article
872981. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.872981
Vijayasingam, V., Hussain, Z., & Bramesfeld, K. (2021). Hypocrisy and moral justification: Do
consequences and reasons make a difference? UTSC’s. Journal of Nature and Science,
2(1), 49–61. https://doi.org/10.33137/jns.v2i1.34659
Vogels, E. A. (2021a, January 13). The state of online harassment. Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/01/13/the-state-of-online-harassment/
Vogels, E. A. (2021b, May 19). Americans and “cancel culture”: Where some see calls for
accountability, others see censorship, punishment. Pew Research Center.
https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2021/05/19/americans-and-cancel-culture-wheresome-see-calls-for-accountability-others-see-censorship-punishment/

259
Vyrostek, S. (2009). Accountability the individual way. Educational Horizons, 87(2), 128–134.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/42923754
Walker, S. N., & Brown, R. L. (2020, June 2–5). Critical thinking on technology use: higher
education course design to promote personal, professional and societal change [Paper
presentation]. 6th International Conference on Higher Education Advances, Valencia,
Spain. https://doi.org/10.4995/HEAd20.2020.11300
Wang, B., Zhao, Y., Lu, X., & Qin, B. (2023). Cognitive distortion based explainable depression
detection and analysis technologies for the adolescent internet users on social media.
Frontiers in Public Health, 10, Article 1045777.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1045777
Warner, J. (2018). A million thoughts on “The Coddling of the American Mind.” Inside Higher
Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/just-visiting/million-thoughts-coddlingamerican-mind
Wasuja, S., Sagar, M., & Sushil, S. (2012). Cognitive bias in salespersons in specialty drug
selling of pharmaceutical industry. International Journal of Pharmaceutical and
Healthcare Marketing, 6(4), 310–335. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506121211283217
Watkins, N., & Clark, L. (2023). Ur dad is my gardener: Antiracist conversations for educational
leaders. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 26(4), 10–28.
https://doi.org/10.1177/15554589231184795
Wegerif, R., Fujita, T., Doney, J., Perez Linares, J., Richards, A., & van Rhyn, C. (2017).
Developing and trialing a measure of group thinking. Learning and Instruction, 48, 40–
50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.08.001

260
Werdmuller, B. (2018). Equality of opportunity vs equality of outcome. Werd I/O.
https://werd.io/2018/equality-of-opportunity-vs-equality-of-outcome
Wells, J. (2013). The Black freedom struggle and civil rights labor organizing in the Piedmont
and Eastern North Carolina tobacco industry [Unpublished master’s thesis]. University
of South Florida.
https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5987&context=etd
Wheeler, M., McGrath, M., & Haslam, N. (2019). Twentieth century morality: The rise and fall
of moral concepts from 1900 to 2007. PLoS One, 14(2), Article e0212267.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212267
White, J. L., & Cones, J. H. (1999). Black man emerging: Facing the past and seizing a future in
America. W. H. Freeman & Co
The White House Office of the Press Secretary. (2016, June 9). Fact sheet: Obama
Administration’s record and the LGBT community.
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/06/09/fact-sheet-obamaadministrations-record-and-lgbt-community
Williams, K. D. (2007). Social ostracism. In R. M. Kowalski (Ed.), Aversive Interpersonal
Behaviors (pp. 133–170). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4757-9354-3_7
Wilson, J. (1996). Myths and facts: How real is political correctness? William Mitchell Law
Review, 22(2), Article 11.
https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2045&context=wmlr
Withers, A. J. (2020). Disability politics and theory. Fernwood Publishing.
Woolfe, R., Strawbridge, S., Douglas, B., & Dryden, W. (2009). Handbook of counselling
psychology. SAGE.

261
Woolley, S. (2022, December 21). How social media platforms can reduce polarization.
Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-social-media-platformscan-reduce-polarization/
Yates, G. G. (1975). What women want: The ideas of the movement. Harvard University Press.
Young, D. G., & Young, D. G. (2020). Irony and outrage: The polarized landscape of rage, fear,
and laughter in the United States. Oxford University Press.
Zhang, W., & Weiss, J. C. (2022). Longitudinal fairness with censorship. Proceedings of the
AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 36(11), 12235–12243.
https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v36i11.21484

262
Appendix A: Coding Table
Research question Area of conceptual
framework (a priori
code)
Code
(thematic codes)
How are cognitive distortion,
safetyism, and political correctness
linked?
Safetyism Conflict avoidance
Emotional pain
Psychological safety
Risk aversion
Anxiety
How do cognitive distortion,
safetyism, and political correctness
link to fragility?
Language
Ostracism
Iconoclasm
Labeling
Privilege and victimhood
How do cognitive distortion,
safetyism, and political correctness
link to censorship?
Concept creep
Tribalism and groupthink
Lack of accountability
How do cognitive distortion,
safetyism, and political correctness
link to social fragmentation?
Equality of outcome
versus opportunity
Appendix A: Coding Table

263
Appendix B: Not Human Subjects Research

264
Appendix C: Protocols
In the protocol section of this dissertation, the research methodology centers on
employing qualitative analysis through the lens of grounded theory. Grounded theory
methodology is chosen as it offers a systematic and inductive approach to data collection and
analysis, allowing for the exploration of complex phenomena in a holistic manner. The study
utilized social observations and document analysis to gather rich and nuanced data. Through
constant data comparison, I aimed to develop a theoretical framework grounded in the social
theory, perspectives, and experiences. This approach ensures that the emerging theory is deeply
rooted in the data, enabling a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon under
investigation. The protocol outlines the rigorous steps and procedures to be followed in
conducting the grounded theory analysis, ensuring methodological rigor and the generation of
meaningful insights.

265
Appendix D: Combined Tables of the Framework for Cataloging Research
Appendix D: Combined Tables of the Framework for Cataloging Research
Author Title of article Type of artifact
American Psychological
Association (2020)
Stress in America 2020 Survey
Barthel and Mitchell (2017) Americans’ Attitudes About the News
Media Deeply Divided Along Partisan
Lines
Journal article
Celniker et al. (2022) Correlates of “Coddling:” Cognitive
Distortions Predict Safetyism
Journal article
Chung and Shakra (2020) The Association Between Trauma
Centrality and Posttraumatic Stress
Among Syrian Refugees: The Impact
of Cognitive Distortions and TraumaCoping Self-Efficacy
Journal article
Doherty et al. (2016) Partisanship and Political Animosity in
2016
Journal article
Foundation for Individual
Rights and Expression
(2021)
College Free Speech Rankings 2021 Survey
Harper et al. (2022) Do Concepts Creep to the Left and the
Right? Evidence for Ideologically
Salient Concept Breadth Judgments
Across the Political Spectrum
Journal article
Haslam (2016) Concept Creep: Psychology’s Expanding
Concepts of Harm and Pathology
Journal article
Jones and McNally (2022) Does Broadening One’s Concept of
Trauma Undermine Resilience
Journal article
Kerr et al. (2021) Political Polarization on COVID-19
Pandemic Response in the United
States
Journal article
Lukianoff and Schlott (2023) The Canceling of the American Mind Book
McCoy Family Center for
Ethics in Society (2023)
Equality of Outcome University website
Mervosh (2022) The Pandemic Erased Two Decades of
Progress in Math and Reading
Journal article
Mitchell (2021) How America Changed During Donald
Trump’s Presidency
Journal article
Mitts et al. (2022) Removal of Anti-vaccine Content
Impacts Social Media Discourse
Journal article
Packer and Bavel (2022) The Myth of Tribalism Op-ed article
Quarles and Bozarth (2022) How the Term “White Privilege” Affects
Participation, Polarization, and Content
in Online Communication
Journal article
Riley (2017) Oxford Head Wants Gay Students to
Debate Homophobic Teachers
Op-ed article

266
Author Title of article Type of artifact
Saad (2022) U.S. Political Ideology Steady,
Conservatives, Moderates Tie
Research study
Shapiro and Fogel (2019) Tribalism in the Trump Era: The Societal
Resilience Index
Journal article
Southern Poverty Law
Center (2015)
The Year in Hate and Extremism Journal article

Abstract (if available)

Abstract This dissertation offered insights into the repercussions of safetyism within societies shaped by cognitive distortions and political correctness. Safetyism, which prioritized emotional safety over intellectual liberty and a multitude of viewpoints, contributed to heightened vulnerability among individuals. Protecting individuals from provocative ideas weakened resilience and hindered personal growth. Furthermore, safetyism frequently led to the suppression of contentious views to evade discomfort, thus curtailing freedom of expression and hampering intellectual progress. Societal environments dominated by safetyism were prone to favoring conformity at the expense of critical thinking, thereby quashing innovation and the spirit of independent reasoning. Grasping the impact of safetyism on individual fragility, censorship, and societal division was crucial for fostering an environment conducive to progressive thinking and creativity. Diversity in thought and open discourse could be possible by recognizing the limitations of an excessively cautious culture and striving for a balanced approach that marries psychological well-being with the fundamental principles of intellectual freedom. The research methodology was based on a qualitative approach using grounded theory to explore the complex social phenomenon of safetyism. This involved analyzing various qualitative sources such as books, articles, podcasts, and electronic database analyses to generate anecdotal evidence. Grounded theory was used to systematically organize emerging themes, combining deductive and inductive reasoning to ensure the resultant theories were firmly rooted in the data. The hypothesized themes were fragility, censorship, and social fragmentation

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

PowerPoint design based on cognitive load theory and cognitive theory of multimedia learning for introduction to statistics

PDF

Impostor phenomenon determinants in research and development organizations

PDF

Investigating the personal and organizational factors influencing the departure of female physicians from healthcare leadership roles

PDF

Understanding burnout in non-denominational clergy: a social cognitive approach

PDF

Attending to the lived experiences of behavior technicians to discover the keys to retention: an exploratory study

PDF

Managing competing stakeholder demands: global leaders’ decision-making amid social backlash

PDF

Lived experiences of transgender young adults transitioning during the COVID-19 pandemic

PDF

Empowering Black women: Navigating breast cancer care and survivorship

PDF

Understanding barriers and resiliency: experiences from Latina leaders in local government

PDF

More than a game: understanding the value of funding that corporate partnership decision-makers can offer clubs within the National Women’s Soccer League

PDF

College-educated older adults and information and communications technology

PDF

The impact of virtual clinical education during the COVID-19 pandemic on nursing graduates in the hospital setting

PDF

The role of psychological safety in medical device quality

PDF

Women Chief Information Officers (CIOs): how did they make it?

PDF

Care and social-emotional well-being: organizational conditions in policy and practice

PDF

African American officer's experiences as leaders navigating the United States Armed Service

PDF

Examining the underemployment of persons with disabilities in the workplace

PDF

The Relationship Between Institutional Marketing and Communications and Black Student Intent to Persist in Private Universities

PDF

The antecedents and consequences of low franchisee satisfaction and its effect on retention: an exploration of a critical issue through the lens of Urie Bronfenbrenner's ecological systems theory

PDF

Sense of belonging and inclusion among non-Christian students at Jesuit Catholic universities: a qualitative study

Asset Metadata

Creator Regan, Robert (author)

Core Title Cognitive distortion and political correctness: unraveling the implications of safetyism

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2024-05

Publication Date 07/09/2024

Defense Date 06/25/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag anecdotal,censorship,cognitive distortion,fragility,Freedom of speech,grounded theory,OAI-PMH Harvest,political correctness,resilience,safetyism,social fragmentation

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Tobey, Patricia (committee chair), Durkin, Terence (committee member), Hocevar, Dennis (committee member)

Creator Email reganr@usc.edu,reganr7947@gmail.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113997ES4

Unique identifier UC113997ES4

Identifier etd-ReganRober-13182.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-ReganRober-13182

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Regan, Robert

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240709-usctheses-batch-1177 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu