r/FreeSpeech • u/WankingAsWeSpeak • 6h ago
Psychologists identify three distinct profiles of support for free speech
Researchers...defined free speech support across four specific dimensions. The first is tolerance for offensive speech, which involves accepting language that challenges deeply held moral frameworks or sacred values. The second is tolerance for disagreement, or allowing others to express contradictory beliefs that might cause interpersonal tension.
The third dimension is tolerance for heterodox speech. This involves an openness to non-mainstream or unconventional ideas, even those that seem irrational. The final dimension is tolerance for socially divisive speech, which reflects support for public advocacy or protests that could be seen as threatening societal cohesion.
Researchers also suspected that attitudes about free speech might relate to how people view information and authority. People who distrust dominant institutions, such as the government or the news media, might favor completely unrestricted expression as a way to bypass what they perceive as informational control. Nejc Plohl, a psychologist at the University of Maribor in Slovenia, led a research team to investigate how these different dimensions of free speech support combine within individuals. Plohl and his colleagues, Dean Korošak and Boris Podobnik, wanted to see if specific types of people share distinct patterns of tolerance for controversial speech.
...
The majority of the participants, making up about 57 percent of the group, fell into a “conditional tolerance” profile. These individuals showed average tolerance for offensive speech and disagreement, but were slightly less tolerant of heterodox and socially divisive speech. This suggests they hold a moderate, context-sensitive view of free expression.
About 20 percent of the participants formed a “low tolerance” profile. These individuals consistently reported the lowest acceptance of controversial or norm-challenging speech across all four categories. They were especially intolerant of offensive speech and basic disagreement.
The remaining 23 percent of the sample fell into a “broad tolerance” profile. These participants expressed highly permissive attitudes toward all forms of speech, including ideas that most people would find offensive or socially destructive.
When the researchers looked at how these profiles aligned with other personal characteristics, several patterns emerged. Men and highly educated individuals were heavily overrepresented in the broad tolerance group. Women were more prevalent in the low tolerance group. Age differences between the profiles were not statistically significant.
In terms of politics, the low tolerance profile leaned slightly more conservative than the other groups. The broad tolerance profile leaned more liberal, with the conditional tolerance profile falling in the middle. The most pronounced differences, however, appeared in how the groups viewed institutions and information.
Participants in the broad tolerance group reported the highest levels of belief in conspiracy theories and the lowest levels of trust in science, politics, and journalism. Conversely, the conditional tolerance group exhibited the highest trust in these institutions and the lowest endorsement of conspiracy theories. The researchers concluded that a blanket endorsement of free speech often co-occurs with an underlying distrust of official authorities.