Intergroup Bias in Attitudes Toward Restrictions on Uncivil Political Expression and Its Underlying Mechanisms

TL;DR

This study reveals that people exhibit intergroup biases in perceiving uncivil political expression, leading to stronger support for restrictions on out-group expressions compared to in-group ones, highlighting biases in attitudes toward free speech.

Contribution

It demonstrates the presence of intergroup biases in attitudes toward uncivil political expression and how these biases influence support for speech restrictions.

Findings

Out-group uncivil expressions are perceived as more uncivil.

Support for restrictions is higher for out-group expressions.

Intergroup bias affects attitudes toward free speech restrictions.

Abstract

There appears to be a dilemma between the freedom of expression and protection from the adverse effects of uncivil political expression online. While previous studies have revealed various factors that affect attitudes toward freedom of expression and speech restrictions, it is less clear whether people have intergroup biases when forming these attitudes. To address this gap, the present study conducted a pre-registered online survey experiment and investigated people's attitudes toward uncivil political expression by randomizing its in-group and out-group affiliations. The results revealed that people tend to perceive uncivil political expression directed from an out-group toward an in-group as more uncivil, compared to the expression originating from an in-group toward an out-group. This difference subsequently influences their inclination to endorse speech restrictions when faced with uncivil political comments: stronger support for restrictions on expressions from the out-group toward the in-group as opposed to those from the in-group toward the out-group. These findings should serve as a wake-up call to public opinion that advocates for restrictions on uncivil political expression.