People who express the most permissive attitudes toward free speech often harbor stronger beliefs in conspiracy theories and lower trust in societal institutions. These patterns suggest that advocating for unrestricted expression is not always driven by a commitment to democratic values, but might also stem from a deep skepticism toward official narratives. The research was published in Personality and Individual Differences.
Psychologists have traditionally measured support for freedom of speech as a single, overarching attitude. This approach assumes that a person who defends the right to speak freely will do so evenly across all situations. In recent years, researchers have proposed that this support is actually broken down into different categories, depending on the type of speech involved. A person might tolerate everyday disagreements but draw the line at speech that is deeply offensive or threatens social order.
To capture these nuances, researchers have recently 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 researchers surveyed 563 European adults online. The participants completed a 24-item questionnaire designed to measure their tolerance for the four specific types of speech mentioned above. Participants rated how much they agreed with statements assessing their willingness to allow offensive, disagreeing, heterodox, and socially divisive speech.
Alongside the free speech questionnaire, the participants answered questions about their political ideology, their level of education, and their gender. They also completed measures to gauge their belief in conspiracy theories and their trust in three major societal institutions. To assess institutional trust, participants estimated the percentage of journalists, politicians, and scientists who prioritize truth and public well-being over other interests. To measure conspiracy ideation, participants rated how strongly they believed that official accounts of events are frequently designed to hide the truth.
The researchers first used a statistical technique called confirmatory factor analysis to see if the participants’ answers naturally grouped into the four proposed categories of speech. This method tests whether a set of survey items accurately measures the distinct concepts they were designed to evaluate. The analysis showed that people do indeed view offensive, disagreeing, heterodox, and socially divisive speech as distinct concepts. The researchers found no statistical support for a single, general attitude covering all forms of free expression.
Next, the team used a method called latent profile analysis to sort the participants into groups based on their shared response patterns. This technique identifies hidden subgroups within a larger population by finding people who answer questions in very similar ways. The analysis revealed three distinct profiles of free speech support.
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.
The study relied on an abstract questionnaire that asked participants how they felt about hypothetical types of speech. People often respond differently when confronted with specific, real-world examples of controversial statements. Because the survey did not present concrete scenarios, the findings represent how people think about free speech in theory rather than how they might react in practice. The researchers noted that individuals might support free speech in principle but oppose it when faced with specific topics or targets.
The research relied on data collected at a single point in time, meaning it cannot determine the direction of the relationship between free speech attitudes and institutional trust. It is unknown whether a deep skepticism of institutions causes people to support unrestricted speech, or if holding permissive views on speech naturally leads to greater distrust of authority. It is also possible that an unmeasured factor drives both of these attitudes simultaneously.
The researchers measured political ideology and conspiracy beliefs using very brief questionnaires to reduce the time burden on participants. While these shorter surveys are common in psychological research, they cannot capture the full depth of a person’s political worldview or their specific conspiratorial beliefs. Future studies will need to use more comprehensive assessments to fully understand how these complex traits relate to free speech attitudes.
The study, “Distinct profiles of free speech support and their demographic, ideological, and epistemic characteristics,” was authored by Nejc Plohl, Dean Korošak, and Boris Podobnik.