Political censorship feels acceptable when ideas seem harmful and false

Kubin, E., Von Sikorski, C., & Gray, K. (2024).

Political Psychology.

https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.13011

Abstract

People seem willing to censor disagreeable political and moral ideas. Five studies explore why people engage in political censorship and test a potential route to decreasing censorship. While Americans report being generally supportive of free speech and against censorship (Study 1), we find that people censor material that seems harmful and false (Study 2), which are often ideas from political opponents (Study 3). Building on work demonstrating the perceived truth of harmful experiences (i.e., experiences of victimization), we test an experience-sharing intervention to reduce censorship. Among college students, the intervention indirectly decreased students' willingness to censor controversial campus speakers' ideas, through reducing beliefs that these speakers were sharing harmful and false ideas related to gun policy (Study 4). We also find benefits of sharing harmful experiences related to the abortion debate. Americans were less willing to censor and report the social media posts of opponents who base their views on experiences of victimization rather than scientific findings (Study 5).

Here are some thoughts:

This research explores the psychological underpinnings of political censorship and offers insights into when and why people engage in it.

Americans generally oppose censorship, but there are situations where they find it more acceptable. The key factors driving censorship are perceptions of ideas being harmful and false. People are more likely to endorse censoring their political opponents because they believe these individuals are likely to share harmful and untrue information.

While censorship is often associated with extreme content like hate speech, this research reveals that people are also willing to censor ideas they perceive as harmful and untrue, even if they may not actually be (e.g., opposing views on gun policy).

The study tested a "harmful experience intervention" to reduce political censorship. This intervention shifts perceptions of harm and falsity, making opponents' ideas seem less false and harmful, thereby reducing the inclination to censor. The effects were observed in both college campus settings and social media contexts.

The Theory of Dyadic Morality: Reinventing Moral Judgment by Redefining Harm

Chelsea Schein, Kurt Gray
Personality and Social Psychology Review 
First Published May 14, 2017

Abstract

The nature of harm—and therefore moral judgment—may be misunderstood. Rather than an objective matter of reason, we argue that harm should be redefined as an intuitively perceived continuum. This redefinition provides a new understanding of moral content and mechanism—the constructionist Theory of Dyadic Morality (TDM). TDM suggests that acts are condemned proportional to three elements: norm violations, negative affect, and—importantly—perceived harm. This harm is dyadic, involving an intentional agent causing damage to a vulnerable patient (A→P). TDM predicts causal links both from harm to immorality (dyadic comparison) and from immorality to harm (dyadic completion). Together, these two processes make the “dyadic loop,” explaining moral acquisition and polarization. TDM argues against intuitive harmless wrongs and modular “foundations,” but embraces moral pluralism through varieties of values and the flexibility of perceived harm. Dyadic morality impacts understandings of moral character, moral emotion, and political/cultural differences, and provides research guidelines for moral psychology.

The article is here.