Higher cognitive ability and other psychological factors predict support for free speech

New psychological studies are providing insight into how people think about freedom of speech and censorship. Researchers are exploring the traits, beliefs, and conditions that influence whether individuals support open expression or favor restrictions. The findings suggest a variety of psychological and social factors contribute to how people respond to controversial or unpopular speech.

The ten studies below offer evidence on the conditions under which people are more likely to support free expression or endorse forms of censorship.

1. People with higher cognitive ability are more likely to support free speech, even for disliked groups

Research based on decades of U.S. survey data suggests that individuals with stronger verbal reasoning skills are more likely to support freedom of speech across ideological lines, even for groups they personally dislike. The researchers analyzed 21 waves of the General Social Survey spanning from 1974 to 2018 and found a consistent link between higher vocabulary scores and greater support for allowing controversial groups—whether communists, racists, or anti-religionists—to speak publicly, publish books, and teach.

Follow-up studies confirmed this pattern and expanded it to include additional groups such as Christian fundamentalists and members of the Tea Party. Importantly, those with higher cognitive ability tended to support free speech for all groups, not just those they personally favored. A third study showed that intellectual humility partly explained this link. While individuals high in cognitive ability still judged some speech as objectionable, they were less inclined to support outright censorship. The study provides evidence that cognitive traits—not just ideology—shape one’s tolerance for opposing views.

2. U.S. psychology professors often self-censor on controversial topics

A nationwide survey of psychology professors suggests that self-censorship is common in academia, especially around sensitive or controversial research findings. Although most professors support academic freedom in principle, many are reluctant to share empirical beliefs that might be unpopular or misunderstood. The study, which surveyed 470 professors from top U.S. psychology programs, found that fear of social backlash, including reputational damage and online harassment, often leads scholars to stay silent—even when they believe the science supports a controversial conclusion.

The research identified ten specific statements considered taboo, ranging from claims about biological sex to racial differences in intelligence. Professors who privately agreed with some of these claims were often hesitant to say so publicly. Even tenured faculty, who typically enjoy job security, expressed concerns about the social consequences of speaking openly. While most respondents rejected suppressing research for moral reasons, younger and more left-leaning professors were more likely to support actions against colleagues who promoted controversial views. The findings point to a tension between the ideals of open inquiry and the social pressures shaping what academics feel safe to express.

3. Conservatives tend to show more anti-democratic attitudes than liberals, partly due to psychological traits

A large-scale survey suggests that anti-democratic tendencies are more common among conservatives than liberals in the United States, and that this difference is partly explained by psychological traits such as right-wing authoritarianism and social dominance orientation. Using data from the 2022 Health of Democracy Survey, researchers found that conservatives were less likely to support political equality and legal protections and were more open to voting for anti-democratic candidates or endorsing political violence.

Freedom of speech was among the democratic norms assessed in the study, and the results indicate that conservatives were more likely than liberals to justify limiting expression under certain conditions. However, the researchers also found that some conservatives who strongly supported the current political system showed greater respect for free speech and legal guarantees, suggesting that belief in institutional legitimacy may temper authoritarian tendencies. The findings provide evidence that ideological asymmetries in support for free expression are not just political but also psychological in nature.

4. Democrats and Republicans agree on what hate speech to censor, even if they don’t realize it

Contrary to popular belief, Democrats and Republicans often agree on which types of hate speech should be removed from social media, according to a survey experiment involving over 3,000 U.S. participants. Both groups were more likely to support censoring posts that targeted marginalized groups such as Black or Jewish individuals, especially when the language was dehumanizing or incited violence. However, Democrats were generally more supportive of censorship than Republicans across the board.

What sets this study apart is its finding that people tend to misjudge their political opponents’ views. Democrats underestimated how much Republicans supported censorship of hate speech targeting marginalized groups, while Republicans underestimated Democrats’ support for censoring hate speech against Whites or Jews. These misperceptions may fuel unnecessary polarization around speech issues. Although Democrats and Republicans differ in how much censorship they favor, the study suggests that their values about what constitutes unacceptable speech are not as far apart as commonly assumed.

5. Education is more effective than censorship in countering disinformation

Mathematical modeling suggests that removing disinformation online—such as banning users or deleting false posts—may be far less effective than teaching people how to think critically. A team of researchers used agent-based modeling to simulate how disinformation spreads through social networks. They tested various mitigation strategies, including content moderation, counter-campaigns, and public education, and found that early and consistent education was the most successful at slowing the spread of false information.

The model showed that when people are trained to recognize bias, question claims, and stay open to changing their minds, they become less likely to adopt false beliefs. In contrast, banning disinformation spreaders or flooding platforms with “corrective” content had only short-term effects and often failed to reverse existing opinions. These findings imply that education strengthens the public’s ability to assess speech rather than simply silencing harmful messages. It provides evidence that building cognitive resilience may be more effective than restricting speech in the fight against disinformation.

6. Scientists sometimes censor each other to protect social harmony

A Perspective piece published in PNAS argues that censorship in science often originates from within the research community. While direct government interference in academic work is relatively rare in democratic societies, more subtle forms of “soft censorship” are widespread. These include discouraging junior researchers from pursuing controversial topics, rejecting papers on the basis of potential harm, and promoting self-censorship out of fear of backlash.

The authors argue that such actions are frequently motivated by prosocial concerns, such as protecting vulnerable groups or preserving social cohesion. While these intentions may be well-meaning, the article warns that they risk undermining the open exchange of ideas that science depends on. Rather than rejecting uncomfortable findings outright, the authors call for clearer ethical guidelines and better communication strategies that balance scientific integrity with social responsibility. The piece highlights how even well-intentioned limits on expression within science can stifle debate and delay discovery.

7. The desire to publicly defend one’s beliefs is declining

An analysis of more than one million survey responses over two decades suggests that people are becoming less willing to publicly defend their personal beliefs. The study tracked changes in the “need for uniqueness” from 2000 to 2020 and found a consistent decline in all three areas measured: defending one’s beliefs, being unconcerned about others’ opinions, and willingness to break rules. The largest drop was in willingness to speak out, a trend the authors suggest could reflect rising social anxiety and fear of online backlash.

While the study doesn’t measure censorship directly, it suggests a growing climate of self-censorship, especially in digital spaces. People may be opting to stay silent rather than risk criticism or conflict. This shift could have broad implications for freedom of expression in public life, as fewer people feel comfortable sharing dissenting or unconventional views. As one of the study’s authors put it, it’s a “slow creep” toward conformity—one that may be shaped by new communication technologies and shifting social norms.

8. Political correctness at work may come at a personal cost

Being politically correct in workplace conversations—avoiding potentially offensive comments or modifying language to be more inclusive—is often seen as respectful and necessary. But new research suggests that it can also be mentally exhausting. In a series of studies, employees who practiced political correctness during the day reported greater cognitive fatigue in the evening. Their partners were also more likely to describe them as irritable or withdrawn.

The researchers emphasized that political correctness often stems from a desire to be kind and inclusive, not from fear or coercion. However, the cognitive effort involved in monitoring speech and suppressing potentially offensive comments appears to deplete mental resources, which may affect interactions at home and work. While not censorship in the institutional sense, this form of self-regulation shows how social norms around speech—even well-intentioned ones—can have psychological consequences that shape how freely people express themselves in professional settings.

9. Progressives and liberals differ in how they approach speech and dissent

A new scale developed to measure progressive values reveals key differences between liberals and progressives, especially in how they handle free expression. According to a series of studies, progressives are more likely than liberals to support publicly shaming individuals who express discriminatory views. They are also more likely to endorse diversity mandates and object to cultural appropriation, while liberals tend to favor incremental change and emphasize shared human experiences.

These findings suggest that progressives and liberals differ not just in degree but in kind. For instance, progressives often support what researchers call “public censure” as a tool for social justice, while liberals are more hesitant to punish speech, even if they find it offensive. The studies offer insight into internal disagreements on the political left about how to balance free speech with equity and social responsibility. Understanding these differences may help clarify debates about campus speech, cancel culture, and how best to promote inclusion without silencing dissent.

10. People across the world become more authoritarian when they feel threatened

A massive global survey covering 59 countries found that people are more likely to favor authoritarian forms of government when they feel personally or politically threatened. This includes support for strong leaders, reduced civil liberties, and diminished tolerance for dissent. The link between threat and authoritarianism held true across cultural and political contexts but was stronger among those who identified as politically conservative.

While the study didn’t focus on speech directly, authoritarian attitudes often include reduced support for freedom of expression. The findings suggest that people’s tolerance for open debate and dissent can shrink when they feel insecure about their safety, health, or political stability. This supports the idea that protecting civil liberties may require more than legal safeguards—it may also depend on reducing fear and instability in society. The study provides evidence that the appeal of censorship and strong control often grows in times of crisis, especially among certain ideological groups.