A new study has been published revealing significant levels of self-censorship among professors of psychology in the United States of America.
Dr. Cory Clark is a behavioural scientist at the University of Pennsylvania. She is the corresponding author of a study, co-authored with twelve other social scientists, titled Taboos and Self-Censorship Among US Psychology Professors.
The study asked 470 psychology professors in USA universities to rate their confidence in the truth or falsity of ten empirical propositions on a scale of 0-100. “0” indicated 100% confidence in falsity, 100 indicated 100% confidence in truth. The propositions had been nominated by psychology professors in an earlier study as “taboo”. They include, for instance: “the tendency to engage in sexually coercive behaviour likely evolved because it conferred some evolutionary advantages on men who engaged in such behaviour”, and “biological sex is binary for the vast majority of people”.
For six of these questions, confidence averaged close to “50”, the value at which a respondent would be equally uncertain as to the truth or falsity of a proposition. Further, for most statements, there was significant variation in reported levels of confidence. These findings, write Clark et al. “seem to indicate little to no scientific consensus on these conclusions [the propositions]”, despite their “taboo” status.
Professors were then asked, for each question, “If the topic came up in a professional setting—for example, at a conference—how reluctant would you feel about sharing your beliefs on this topic openly?” Here, responses also varied significantly, with some professors reporting that they would be “not at all reluctant” and others that they would be “extremely reluctant”. These findings suggest that some psychology professors are strongly motivated to self-censor.
Such self-censorship, Clark et al. suggest, may create a vicious circle, where the silence of those who are more supportive of taboo conclusions convinces others who hold these views that they are isolated and at risk of persecution if they publicise their views. Their reluctance results in further self-censorship and silence.
In a series of further questions, Clark et al. found that “scholars with more socially desirable beliefs were less likely to self-censor, less fearful of punishments, and less likely to perceive the existence of taboos”. It appears that scholars who are not themselves censored are simply less likely to notice the censorship of others. This may explain, in part, why some academics do not believe that academic freedom is threatened.
How similar is the situation in the UK? In February 2024, CAF surveyed its signatories on, amongst other topics, self-censorship. While, unlike Clark. et al.’s study, the academics surveyed were not a representative sample, some comments received are illuminating:
I live in fear of conflict. … Even though I know I am allowed to hold and express such views, I am genuinely fearful. I know other colleagues feel similarly.
I never ever disclose my views. I learned to exercise self-censorship. I learned that when I had a Chair in Sweden. Things are much worse there.
I am very careful now to hide my views about gender definitions and I am VERY much more circumspect in any discussion of my family’s Jewish faith.