ArticlePDF Available

Perceived Freedom of Expression at New Zealand Universities

Authors:
Jamin Halberstadt
Jamin Halberstadt
Jamin Halberstadt
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Arindam Basu
Arindam Basu
Arindam Basu
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Barry Hughes
Barry Hughes
Barry Hughes
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Ruth Hughes at University of Otago
Ruth Hughes
Show all 7 authorsHide
Download full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Abstract

Few topics are currently as polarizing as the appropriate limits, and perceived dangers, of free speech on university campuses. A side effect of this polarized environment is that students themselves may be reluctant to speak publicly on politically sensitive topics. Indeed, recent surveys by the Heterodox Academy (HxA) revealed that a majority of American university students thought their campus was not conducive to the free expression of ideas, and a substantial minority were personally reluctant to discuss “hot topics” like politics or sexual orientation in class. To see whether these results are uniquely American phenomena, we reran the HxA’s survey on 791 students, recruited via advertisements, enrolled in New Zealand universities. As in the original survey, participants answered questions, administered online, about their comfort sharing their opinions on issues related to gender, politics, religion, and sexual orientation, as well as their estimates of other groups’ discomfort. Despite significant sociopolitical differences between the two countries, our results, generally speaking, bear out those in the United States. In both countries, politics elicited the most reluctance to speak, followed by religion, and then gender and sexual orientation (which were equivalent), and New Zealanders were more reluctant than Americans to speak on the latter two topics. Other similarities and differences between the two data sets are discussed, but it is clear that chilled campus speech is not confined to the United States.
Available via license: CC BY
Content may be subject to copyright.
Soc.Sci.2022,11,502.https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci11110502www.mdpi.com/journal/socsci
Article
PerceivedFreedomofExpressionatNewZealandUniversities
JaminHalberstadt
1
,ArindamBasu
2
,BarryHughes
3
,RuthHughes
1
,MichaelJohnston
4
,JamesKierstead
5

andDavidRozado
6,
*
1
DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofOtago,Dunedin9011,NewZealand
2
SchoolofHealthSciences,UniversityofCanterbury,Christchurch8041,NewZealand
3
DepartmentofPsychology,UniversityofAuckland,Auckland1010,NewZealand
4
SchoolofEducation,VictoriaUniversityofWellington,Wellington6012,NewZealand
5
FacultyofHumanitiesandSocialSciences,VictoriaUniversityofWellington,
Wellington6012,NewZealand
6
InformationTechnology,OtagoPolytechnic,Dunedin9054,NewZealand
*Correspondence:david.rozado@op.ac.nz
Abstract:Fewtopicsarecurrentlyaspolarizingastheappropriatelimits,andperceiveddangers,of
freespeechonuniversitycampuses.Asideeffectofthispolarizedenvironmentisthatstudents
themselvesmaybereluctanttospeakpubliclyonpoliticallysensitivetopics.Indeed,recentsurveys
bytheHeterodoxAcademy(HxA)revealedthatamajorityofAmericanuniversitystudentsthought
theircampuswasnotconducivetothefreeexpressionofideas,andasubstantialminoritywere
personallyreluctanttodiscuss“hottopics”likepoliticsorsexualorientationinclass.Toseewhether
theseresultsareuniquelyAmericanphenomena,wererantheHxA’ssurveyon791students,re‐
cruitedviaadvertisements,enrolledinNewZealanduniversities.Asintheoriginalsurvey,partic‐
ipantsansweredquestions,administeredonline,abouttheircomfortsharingtheiropinionsonis‐
suesrelatedtogender,politics,religion,andsexualorientation,aswellastheirestimatesofother
groups’discomfort.Despitesignificantsociopoliticaldifferencesbetweenthetwocountries,ourre‐
sults,generallyspeaking,bearoutthoseintheUnitedStates.Inbothcountries,politicselicitedthe
mostreluctancetospeak,followedbyreligion,andthengenderandsexualorientation(whichwere
equivalent),andNewZealandersweremorereluctantthanAmericanstospeakonthelattertwo
topics.Othersimilaritiesanddifferencesbetweenthetwodatasetsarediscussed,butitisclearthat
chilledcampusspeechisnotconfinedtotheUnitedStates.
Keywords:freespeech;freedomofexpression;universities;viewpointdiversity;universitycam‐
puses
1.PerceivedFreedomofExpressionatNewZealandUniversities
Academicfreedomandfreedomofspeechonuniversitycampusesarehottopics
(e.g.,HaidtandLukianoff2018;Matthews2022).Concernsovertheerosionofbothprin‐
ciples(whicharenotidentical)haveproducedanincreasingvolumeandvarietyofschol‐
arly,print,andonlinemediacontent,alongsidevitriolicdebateonsocialmedia.
Someofthediscussionfocusesonthesefreedomsastheyareupheldorlostbyaca‐
demicsworkinginuniversities(Haller2019;Reichman2019),andsomeonstudents’will‐
ingnesstospeakandlistentotheviewsofothers(Jackson2021;SmeltzerandHearn2015).
Eitherway,fewtopicsareaspolarizing:thereseemstobelittlemiddlegroundwhencon‐
servativeconcernsabouttheriseof“wokebrigades”oncampuscompetewithprogres‐
siveconcernsabouttheriseof“fascism”(HackettandRivera2020).Furiousclaimsthat
conservativevoicesarebeingsuppressedor“canceled”areoffsetbyequallyfurious
claimsthatthesevoicesarepromotingvaluesthatareincompatiblewithamoreenlight‐
enedage.
Citation:Halberstadt,Jamin,
ArindamBasu,BarryHughes,Ruth
Hughes,MichaelJohnston,James
KiersteadandDavidRozado.2022.
PerceivedFreedomof
ExpressionatNewZealand
Universities.SocialSciences11:502.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
socsci11110502
AcademicEditor:NigelParton
Received:11September2022
Accepted:25October2022
Published:31October2022
Publisher’sNote:MDPIstaysneu‐
tralwithregardtojurisdictional
claimsinpublishedmapsandinstitu‐
tionalaffiliations.
Copyright:©2022bytheauthors.Li‐
censeeMDPI,Basel,Switzerland.
Thisarticleisanopenaccessarticle
distributedunderthetermsandcon‐
ditionsoftheCreativeCommonsAt‐
tribution(CCBY)license(https://cre‐
ativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Soc.Sci.2022,11,5022of13
Whateverone’spoliticalleanings,asideeffectoftheemotionbehindthedebateis
thatuniversitystudentsandstaff,leftandright,mayfeelintimidatedattheprospectof
wadingintoit.Recentresearchbearsouttheseconcerns.TheHeterodoxAcademy’s
“CampusExpressionSurvey”ofover4000Americanuniversitystudents(ZhouandZhou
2022)reportedthataboutaquarterofstudentsexpressedreluctancetodiscussgender,
politics,race,religion,and/orsexualorientation,witha(small)increaseoverthethree
wavesofthestudy(2019–2021).Reluctancewashighestfordiscussionsofpolitics(40%in
2021),withpoliticalorientationthestrongestpredictor.Democratsweresubstantiallyless
reluctanttodiscusscontroversialissuesthanstudentsreportingotherpoliticalaffiliations.
Moreover,amajorityeachyear(64%in2021)agreedthat“theclimateonmycampuspre‐
ventssomepeoplefromsayingthingstheybelievebecauseothersmightfindthemoffen‐
sive.”Evenmore(74%in2021)thoughtthissituationwasunacceptable,agreeingthat
“collegesshouldencouragestudentsandprofessorstoshareideasandaskquestions.”
Thesenumbersroughlyalignwithotherrecent(self‐published)researchreportsoncam‐
pusattitudesintheUnitedStates(e.g.,FoundationforIndividualRightsandExpression
2017;KnightFoundation2022).
Ifuniversitiesaretofulfilltheirrolesasuniqueandvitalcruciblesofopenintellectual
debate,thesetrendsareworrying,buthowgeneralizablearethey?CanAmericandatabe
attributedtothepolarizedpoliticalenvironmentoftheUnitedStates,oraretheyaninter‐
nationalphenomenon?(A2019surveybyGrantetal.(2019)foundlessconcernforfree
speechonU.K.campuses,althoughthemanydifferencesinthequestionsusedmakethe
surveysdifficulttocompare.)A2020PewsurveyconcludedthattheUnitedStateswasin
factthemostpoliticallydividedofanyofthe14countriessurveyed.Theresearchersat‐
tributedthistoitstwo‐partysystem,which“standsapartbycollapsingawiderangeof
legitimatesocialandpoliticaldebatesintoasingularbattleline”(DimockandWike2020).
Moreover,reluctancetovoicepotentiallycontroversialviewsisnotconfinedtoAmerican
universities.Evenoffcampus,reluctancetoengageishigh,with40%ofsurveypartici‐
pantsadmittingthatthey“trytoavoid”discussingpoliticswithfamilymembers,afigure
thatunsurprisinglygrowsasafunctionoffamilypoliticaldisagreement(Oliphant2018).
Inthiscontext,isreticenceoncampussimplyamanifestationofmodernAmericanlife,
unlikelytobeevidentinculturesthataremorepoliticallycongenial?
Tofindout,weadministeredaversionofZhouandZhou’s(2022)surveyinNew
Zealand,acountrywithaverydifferentprofileofpoliticalmaliceandgridlockthanof
theUnitedStates.Agenerallyprogressiveparliamentarydemocracy,thecountryiscer‐
tainlynotfreeofpoliticaldisagreement,andgrappleswithmanyofthesameissues—
prejudice,gunlaws,vaccination,taxation,climatechange,etc.—thatdrivepoliticaldivi‐
sionsintheUnitedStates,yetonthewholedoesnotdisplaythedeeppartisanmistrust
thatcharacterizesAmericansociety.NewZealandranksnearthetop,internationally,on
measuresoffreedom,peacefulness,andlackofcorruption(WorldPopulationReview
2022;TransparencyInternational2022).ThesevaluesdidnotpreventtheChristchurch
mosqueattacksin2019,whichwerecarriedoutbyalonegunmanfromAustralia.They
did,however,facilitateanear‐immediatebanontheassaultweaponsusedintheattack,
withthesupportofmostpoliticalparties.Thisexampleisillustrativeofhowdifferent
NewZealandistotheUnitedStates,reflectingboththerarityofseriouspoliticalviolence
andacultureofconformity.How,then,inthisverydifferentpoliticalenvironment,do
NewZealanduniversitystudentsperceivetheirfreedomofexpressiononcampus?
2.Method
2.1.Participants
Atotalof791NewZealanduniversitystudentsweresurveyedonline.Amajority
wereenrolledinthreeofNewZealand’seightuniversities(UniversityofOtago,Univer‐
sityofAuckland,andVictoriaUniversityofWellington,ns=436,181,and155respec‐
tively),and16studentsfromotherinstitutionsalsotookpart(threestudentsdidnotreveal
Soc.Sci.2022,11,5023of13
theiruniversityaffiliation).Anadditional188studentsbeganthesurvey,butdidnotcom‐
pleteit,andarenotincludedinthedataset.
Studentswereinvitedtoparticipateviaposters,departmentalemails,andatargeted
Facebookadvertisement,inexchangeforentryintoadrawtowinoneof100NZD100
Amazongiftcards(theHeterodoxAcademyprovidedfundingforthecards,buthadno
inputintothedesign,interpretation,orwriteupofthiswork).Theprojectwasapproved
bytheHumanEthicsCommitteeateachinstitution,andallparticipantsprovidedin‐
formedconsentbeforetakingpart.
2.2.MaterialsandProcedure
Participantscompletedamodifiedversionofthe2021HeterodoxAcademyCampusEx‐
pressionSurvey(ZhouandZhou2022),adaptedasnecessaryfortheNewZealandcontext
andinlightofrecentupdatestotheadministrationmanual(Stevensetal.2022),adminis‐
teredintheQualtricsonlinesurveyenvironment.Ofprimaryinterestwereresponseson
the“core”and“campusexperience”modulesofthesurvey.The“core”moduleasksques‐
tionsregardingparticipants’comfortsharingtheiropinionsonissuesrelatedtogender,
politics,religion,andsexualorientation(intheAmericanversion,theseweredescribedas
“controversial”issues,andparticipantswerealsosurveyedaboutrace),andtheircon‐
cernsabouttheconsequencesofsharingtheiropinions(perceivedconsequenceswerenot
analyzedforthisreport).The“experienceoncampus”moduleasksparticipantstopredict
whetherotherstudentsinparticulargroups(i.e.,left‐leaning/progressive,right‐lean‐
ing/conservative,white/pakeha,Māori,Pasifika,Asian,female,male,transgender,
gay/lesbian/bisexual,straight,Christian,Hindu,Muslim,andatheist)wouldbemore,
less,orascomfortablesharingtheirviewsinaclassroomdiscussion“comparedtothe
averagestudent.”Theywerealsoaskedtolistanyothergroupsnotincludedinthelist
providedwhomightbeuncomfortablesharingtheirviews.Thissectionalsoincludes
questions,notanalyzedhere,regardinghowoftenparticipantsfeeltheyare“treated
badly”asaconsequenceofvariousgroupmemberships.Finally,participantswereasked
toreporttheirpoliticalleanings,ethnicity,gender,sexualorientation,andreligiousbe‐
liefs,alongwiththeuniversityinwhichtheywereenrolledandthedegreetheywere
pursuing.
ThefullsetofitemsadministeredinNewZealandappearinAppendixA,andthe
fulldatasetat[https://osf.io/mjz9c/,accessedon20October2022].TheAmericanversion
ofthesurveyandresultingdatacanbefoundathttps://heterodoxacademy.org/campus‐
expression‐survey(accessedon20October2022).
Chi‐squaredtestsofassociationwereusedtocomparedistributions,andphiwas
usedasanindexofeffectsize.
3.Results
Insum,513participantsidentifiedasfemale,227asmaleand35as“anothergender”
(14didnotdisclosetheirgender).Ethnically,559participantsidentifiedas“NZEuro‐
pean/pakeha”(pakehabeingtheMāoritermforNewZealandersofEuropeandescent),
106asAsian,62asMāori,30asPasifika,and74asanotherethnicity(10didnotdisclose
theirethnicity).Intermsofsexualorientation,557identifiedasstraight,130asbisexual,
29asgay,and53withasexualitynotlisted(22didnotdisclosetheirsexualorientation).
Most(498)identifiedas“notreligious,”butofthosewhoidentifiedasreligious,165were
Christian,16Hindu,8Buddhist,and69areligionnotlisted(25didnotrespondtothe
question).
Fortyparticipantsoptedoutofoneormorequestions(max=15),resultinginslightly
differentsamplesinparticularanalyses.

Soc.Sci.2022,11,5024of13
3.1.OverallReluctancetoSpeak
Participants’responseswererecodedintodichotomousvariablesindicatingcomfort
(“Very”/“Somewhat”)ordiscomfort(“Notreally”/“Notatall”)with“speakingupandgiv‐
ingyourviews”ongender,politics,religion,andsexualorientation.Percentagesof“un‐
comfortable”respondentsappearinFigure1,alongsidetheHeterodoxAcademy’s2021
Americandata.Bothgroupsweremostreluctanttodiscusspolitics,followedbyreligion,
gender,andsexualorientation(whichwereequivalent).NewZealanderswereslightly
morereluctantthanAmericanstodiscusssexualorientation(28.0%versus23.0%,Χ2(1)=
4.93,p<0.05,phi=0.06),butthetwogroupsdidnotdifferonanyothertopic.
Figure1.Reluctancetospeakasafunctionoftopicandsample.
3.2.GenderDifferences
BoththeAmericanandNewZealandsamplesskewedfemaletoanequivalentextent
(64.9%and61.6%respectively).Thesmallproportionofparticipantswhodefinedthem‐
selvesintermsotherthan“male”and“female,”orwhochosenottoanswer(6.4%and5.0%
inthetwosamples,respectively),werenotincludedintheanalyses.AsseeninFigure2,
womeninbothcountriesexpressedsignificant,andequivalent,reluctancetospeakabout
politicsandreligion,relativetomen.Ontheotherhand,menweremorereluctantthan
womentospeakaboutissuesofgenderandsexualorientation,butonlyinNewZealand,
whileAmericansdidnotdiffer.Chi‐squaredtestsappearinTable1.
Table1.Resultsofalldemographiccomparisons.
Femalevs.MaleRightvs.LeftReligiousvs.
Nonreligious
Straightvs.
Non‐Straight
USANZUSANZUSANZUSANZ
Gender0.1615.2615.475.433.594.383.8113.01
(0.01)(0.14)(0.13)(0.09)(0.05)(0.08)(0.05)(0.13)
Politics21.9220.732.430.178.010.390.2015.10
(0.12)(0.17)(0.05)(0.02)(0.08)(0.02)(0.01)(0.14)
Religion16.0015.094.650.374.558.3012.810.02
(0.11)(0.14)(0.07)(0.02)(0.06)(0.11)(0.09)(0.01)
SexualOrientation3.003.866.705.779.0618.160.8323.75
(0.05)(0.07)(0.09)(0.09)(0.08)(0.16)(0.02)(0.18)
Note:ValuesareresultsofPearsonchi‐squaredtestswith1df;effectsizes(phi)areinparentheses.
Statisticallysignificanteffects(p<0.05)areinbold.
0
10
20
30
40
50
Gender Politics Religion Sexual Orientation
% uncomfortable participants
USA
New Zealand
Soc.Sci.2022,11,5025of13
Figure2.Reluctancetospeakasafunctionofparticipantsex,topic,andsample.
3.3.PoliticalDifferences
InordertocomparetheNewZealandtotheAmericansample,participantswere
codedaseither“left‐leaning”(including“centrist/moderate”)oras“right‐leaning”(this
dichotomywasoperationalizedintheAmericansampleas“thinkingofyourselfas”a
DemocratorRepublican,respectively).Otherpoliticalidentitiesthatdidnotcleanlymap
ontoaright–leftpoliticalcontinuum(39.0%and33.8%oftheAmericanandNewZealand
samples,respectively)werenotincludedintheseanalyses.Bothsamplesleanedstrongly
left,althoughthedifferencewasmoreextremeinNewZealandthanintheUnitedStates
(6.6%versus16.1%right‐leaning,respectively).Thepercentagesofright‐andleft‐leaning
participantswhoreportedreluctancetospeakappearinFigure3.
Figure3.Reluctancetospeakbypoliticalleaning,topic,andsample.
Asseeninthefigure,right‐leaningNewZealandstudents,liketheirAmericancoun‐
terparts,weremorereluctanttospeakaboutissuesofgenderandsexualitythanleft‐lean‐
ingstudents.Reluctancetospeakaboutpoliticswasequivalent,andrelativelyhigh,in
bothsamples,regardlessofpoliticalleanings,whileleft‐leaningAmericansweremore
0
10
20
30
40
50
USA NZ USA NZ USA NZ USA NZ
Gender Politics Religion SexualOrientation
%uncomfortableparticipants
Female
Male
0
10
20
30
40
50
USA NZ USA NZ USA NZ USA NZ
Gender Politics Religion Sexuality
% uncomfortable participants
Left Right
Soc.Sci.2022,11,5026of13
reluctantthanright‐leaningAmericanstodiscussreligion(therewasnodifferenceinNew
Zealand).Chi‐squaredtestsappearinTable1.
3.4.ReligiousDifferences
Participantswereclassifiedasreligiousiftheyspecifiedareligiousidentification
(e.g.,Christian,Muslim),nonreligiousiftheydescribedthemselvesassuch(intheNew
Zealandsample),orasatheistoragnostic(intheAmericansample).Participantswhode‐
scribedthemselvesinothertermsorwhochosenottoanswer(14.6%and23.9%inthe
NewZealandandAmericansamples,respectively)wereexcludedfromtheseanalyses.
Consistentlywithnationaldemographics,theAmericansamplereportedmuchgreater
religiositythantheNewZealandsample(56.3%versus13.1%).Thepercentagesofreli‐
giousandnonreligiousparticipantswhoreportedreluctancetospeakappearinFigure4.
Figure4.Reluctancetospeakbyreligiosity,topic,andsample.
Asseeninthefigure,religiositypredicteddiscomfortinlargelythesamewayinthe
twocountries:nonreligiouspeopleweremorereluctanttodiscussreligionandlessreluc‐
tanttodiscusssexualorientationthanreligiouspeople(resultsofchi‐squaredtestsand
effectsizesappearinTable1).Theoneexceptionwasinpolitics:religiousAmericanswere
morereluctanttodiscusspolitics,butreligiositywasunrelatedtodiscomfortinNewZea‐
land.
3.5.SexualOrientationDifferences
Anequivalentmajorityofstudentsidentifiedas“straight”inboththeAmericanand
NewZealandsamples(72.2%and70.4%,respectively).Tomaximizethenumberofana‐
lyzableparticipantsandtoaccommodatethevarietyofself‐identifications,allotherpar‐
ticipantswerecodedsimplyas“non‐straight”forpurposesoftheseanalyses.Thesmall
number(2.8%)ofNewZealanderswho“preferrednottosay”werenotincluded.
Unlikeotherdemographics,sexualorientationeffectsweremarkedlydifferentinthe
twocountries.InNewZealand,butnottheUnitedStates,straightparticipantsweremore
reluctantthannon‐straightparticipantstospeakonsex,politics,and(especially)sexual
orientation.IntheUnitedStates,thetwogroupsdifferedonlyonthetopicofreligion,
withnon‐straightparticipantsmorereluctant(Americansalsoexhibitedasmalldifference
onsex).PercentagesofreluctantparticipantsappearinFigure5,andchi‐squaredtestsand
effectsizesinTable1.
0
10
20
30
40
50
USA NZ USA NZ USA NZ USA NZ
Gender Politics Religion Sexual Orientation
% uncomfortable participants
Nonreligious
Religious
Soc.Sci.2022,11,5027of13
Figure5.Reluctancetospeakbysexualorientation,topic,andsample.
3.6.PerceptionofOtherGroups’Discomfort
Thepercentagesofparticipantswhojudgedeachof15political,gender‐based,sex‐
based,andreligiousgroupsas“lesscomfortablesharingtheirviewsinaclassroomdis‐
cussioncomparedtotheaveragestudent”appearinFigure6.Ingeneral,perceptionsmir‐
rorminorityand/orsocialstatusinNewZealandculture,withfemalestudentsjudgedto
belesscomfortablethanmalestudents,right‐leaninglesscomfortablethanleft‐leaning,
non‐ChristianlesscomfortablethanChristian,andLGBT(andparticularlytransgender)
lesscomfortablethanstraight.
Moreinterestingly,perceptionsdidnotalwaysconformtoreality,thoughdifferences
inthewordingofthequestionsmakedirectcomparisonsdifficult.AsseeninFigures2–
5,althoughthedataforpoliticalleaningswerelargelyconsistentwithperceptions,itwas
straight,notLGBTstudents,whoweremorereluctanttospeakinclass.Differencesbe‐
tweensexandreligiousgroupsweremorenuanced,withreluctancevaryingbytopic.
Figure6.Perceptionsof15groups’discomfort.Note:Valuesrepresenttheproportionofparticipants
whojudgedeachgrouptobe“lesscomfortablesharingtheirviewsinaclassroomdiscussioncom‐
paredtotheaveragestudent.”
0
10
20
30
40
50
USA NZ USA NZ USA NZ USA NZ
Sex Politics Religion Sexual Orientation
% uncomfortable participants
Nonstraight
Straight
0
20
40
60
80
100
Trans
Muslim
Pacifika
Asian
Maori
Hindu
Right‐leaning
Lesbian/Gay/Bi
Female
Christian
Male
Atheist
WhitePakeha
Straight
Left‐leaning
%participantsjudging"uncomfortable"
Soc.Sci.2022,11,5028of13
Finally,itisworthexaminingparticipants’open‐endedreportsofothergroups,not
onourlist,that“maybeespeciallyuncomfortablesharingtheirviews.”Aqualitativeanal‐
ysisofthe182listedgroupsrevealedthatthemostcommonlycitedadditionalgroups
werestudentswithspecialneeds,includingstudentswithdisabilities(32responses),men‐
talhealthissues,andbehavioralorlearningdifficulties,aswellasstudentswhowere
neurodivergent,shyorintroverted,orharassedorbullied.Anumberofotherstudents
offeredalternativeorsubcategoriesofgroupslistedinthesurvey,particularlywithregard
togenderidentity(e.g.,nonbinary,gender‐diverse),race(indigenous,African),andrelig‐
iosity(Sikh,Buddhist).Onlyasmallnumberoflisteddemographiccategorieswerenot
consideredinthestudy,includingage,weight,socioeconomicstatus,andimmigration
status.
4.Discussion
ItisclearfromtheHeterodoxAcademy’srecentdatathatmanystudentsareperson‐
allyreluctanttoairtheirviewsinanacademicsetting,theverycontextinwhichthose
viewsmightbestbetested.Evenmorestudents,amajority,believedthattheclimateon
theircampuswasnotconducivetofreeexpression,andevenmorebelieveditshouldbe
(ZhouandZhou2022).However,itisalsoclearthatsuchreticenceisnotlimitedtoAmer‐
icancampuses.Americansingeneralarepolarized,reluctanttoengageindebate,partic‐
ularlypoliticaldebate,withthosewholikelydisagree.Thecausesandconsequencesof
thesetrendsarebeyondthescopeofthispaper,butthedistinctive(ifnotunique)situation
intheUnitedStatesraisesthequestionofhow(andwhether)toaddressthesituationon
campus.Isthechillincampusexpressionsimplyaspecial,rarefiedinstantiationofAmer‐
icanciviclife,oriscampusexpressionunderthreatmoregenerallyasaconsequenceof
changingnormsworldwide?Anobviousfirststeptoansweringthisquestionistocollect
moredata—ideally,aswehave,inaverydifferentsociopoliticalcontext,suchasNew
Zealand.
However,despiteNewZealand’sdifferencesintermsofdemographics,political
structures,andinterpersonalanimosity,ourresults,generallyspeaking,bearoutthosein
theUnitedStates.Dependingontheissue,between20%and40%ofNewZealandstu‐
dentsexpressedreluctanceto“speakupandgivetheirviews”intheclassroom,andover‐
all,65.4%werereluctanttospeakonatleastoneofthetopicssurveyed,significantly
greaterthanthecorrespondingproportion(i.e.,forthesamefourtopics)intheAmerican
sample(56.6%).Inbothcountries,politicselicitedthemostreluctance,followedbyreli‐
gion,andthengenderandsexualorientation(whichwereequivalent),althoughtherewas
someevidenceforNewZealanders’greaterreluctanceonthelattertopics.
Othersimilaritiesemergedwhenresultswerebrokendownbyspecifictopicsand
demographicgroups.Inbothcountries,women(versusmen)weremorereluctantto
speakaboutpoliticsandreligion,whileright‐ (versusleft‐)leaningstudentsweremore
reluctanttospeakaboutgenderandsexualorientation.Religiositycrossedthesetopic
pairings:perhapsunsurprisingly,religious(versusnonreligious)participantsweremore
reluctanttotalkaboutsexualorientation,butlessreluctanttotalkaboutreligionitself.No
topicwasavoidedbyallgroupsandnogroupavoidedalltopicsineithercountry,but
withtheexceptionofreligiosity,therewasalsonoevidenceofdemographicparochiality.
Fromthisperspective,thesimilaritiesacrosssamplesareremarkable.NewZealandstu‐
dentsare,asagroup,farmoreliberalandlessreligiousthantheirAmericancounterparts,
yetforthemostpartexpresssimilarconcernsaboutexpressingtheiropinionsaboutthese
andothertopicsoncampus.
Therewere,however,notableexceptionstotheseconsistencies.Asnoted,NewZea‐
land(versusAmerican)studentswereslightlymorereluctantoveralltodiscussgender
andsexualorientation,andthisdifferenceappearstobedrivenbystraightmales.Straight
maleNewZealanderswerealsoparticularlyreluctanttotalkaboutpolitics,perhapsre‐
flectingtheinfusionofgenderintopoliticsinthiscountry.Analogously,thedistinctive
reluctanceofleft‐leaningAmericanstodiscussreligionmightbeassociatedwiththe
Soc.Sci.2022,11,5029of13
conflationofreligionandpoliticsintheUnitedStates.Bothaccountsareonlyspeculative
atthispoint,however.
Whilestraight(andonsometopics,male)studentsreportbeingtheleastcomfortable
inNewZealandclassrooms,theyareestimatedbyparticipantstobeamongthemostcom‐
fortable(seeFigure6).Otherdiscrepanciesdidnotemergetothesameextent:left‐(versus
right‐)leaningstudents,forexample,reportedgreatercomfortonalltopics,andwerealso
estimatedtobeso.Discrepanciesbetween“self”and“other”judgmentsarecommonin
thesocialpsychologicalliterature(e.g.,Bradley1978;KrugerandDunning1999),alt‐
houghtheyaremoretypicallytheresultofself‐servingmotives,withindividualsreport‐
ingmorepositivebehaviorthantheypredictforothers,anditisnotclearwhetherornot
“reluctancetospeak”representsasimilarphenomenon.
Anotherreasontobecautiousaboutinterpretingandcomparingself‐assessmentof
“reluctance”and“comfort”isthatthemeaningandcauseofthesestatesmaydifferbe‐
tweenandwithingroups.Itisnotclear,forexample,whetherreported(orforecast)dis‐
comfortisduetofearofprogressives’reprisalsforpoliticallyincorrectopinions,ordue
toprogressives’ownconcernabout“unsafe”conditionsintheclassroom(thetwointer‐
pretationssupportoppositeconclusionsaboutthevalueofunfetteredspeech),orindeed
duetofearofinstitutionalresponsestoperceivedbias(e.g.,“biasresponseteams”;Miller
etal.2018).Nevertheless,discrepanciesbetweenpredictedandself‐reportedwillingness
toengageinclassroomdiscussionareimportant.Whateverthecauseoftheirreluctance,
studentswhoarefearfulofcontributingtoclassdiscussions,butwhoarenotrecognized
assuch,arelikelytobecomefurtheralienated.
Itisimportanttoacknowledgethatthecurrentstudyitselfisnecessarilyanimperfect
replicationoftheresearchonwhichitwasbased.Inparticular,demographiccategories
usedinNewZealanddonotmapperfectlyontothoseintheUnitedStates(e.g.,“atheist”
versus“nonreligious”),addingsomeerrortocross‐nationalcomparisons.Indeed,racial
categoriesaresodiscrepantinthetwocountriesthatquestionsonthistopicwerelargely
omitted,leavinganunfortunategapinthedata.Evenwhenthesamewordingwasused,
itisnotclearthatitreferstothesamegroupsinbothcountries:“gender,”forexample,
increasinglyreferstogenderidentityratherthanbiologicalsex,andparticipantslikely
hadamixofthetwoinmindinbothstudies.Wealsonotethatourdataprimarilycome
fromthreeofNewZealand’seightuniversities,andsoarepotentiallylimitedinthatre‐
gard.
5.Conclusions
Theresultsareclear:chilledcampusspeechisnotuniquetotheUnitedStates.The
resultsdonot,however,supportauniversalphenomenon.Likeanycountry,NewZea‐
landisquitedistinctfromtheUnitedStatesonsomedimensions,butverysimilaronoth‐
ers.ItisnotpossiblefromananalysisofNewZealandalonetotellwhichdimensionsare
relevanttocampusexpressionortheextenttowhichresultsaretheconsequenceofAmer‐
icanculturalexportation.Ourresultsultimatelyrepresentjustone,albeitsignificant,da‐
taset,andweencourageotherresearcherstoadministertheirownversionsofthesurvey
totheirownstudents—andacademicstaff—tocreateamoreaccuratepictureoftheinter‐
nationalsituationonuniversitycampuses.
AuthorContributions:J.H.analyzeddataandwrotethefirstdraftofthemanuscript,butallauthors
contributedequallytoconceptualizationandimplementationofthestudy.Allauthorshaveread
andagreedtothepublishedversionofthemanuscript.
Funding:ThisresearchwaspartiallyfundedbyagrantfromtheHeterodoxAcademy.
InstitutionalReviewBoardStatement:Thisstudywasapprovedbytheinstitutionalreviewboards
atallparticipatinginstitutions.
InformedConsentStatement:Allparticipantsprovidedwritteninformedconsent
Soc.Sci.2022,11,50210of13
DataAvailabilityStatement:Dataareavailableathttps://osf.io/mjz9c/(accessedon20October
2022)
ConflictsofInterest:Theauthorsdeclarenoconflictsofinterest.
AppendixA.The2021NewZealandCampusExpressionSurvey
(1)ThinkaboutbeinginaclassthatwasdiscussinganissuetodowithGENDER.Howcomfort‐
ablewouldyoufeelaboutspeakingupandgivingyourviewsonthistopic?
VerySomewha
t
NotreallyNotatall
(2)ThinkaboutbeinginaclassthatwasdiscussinganissuetodowithPOLITICS.Howcomfort‐
ablewouldyoufeelaboutspeakingupandgivingyourviewsonthistopic?
VerySomewhatNotreallyNotatall
(3)ThinkaboutbeinginaclassthatwasdiscussinganissuetodowithRELIGION.Howcomfort‐
ablewouldyoufeelaboutspeakingupandgivingyourviewsonthistopic?
VerySomewhatNotreallyNotatall
(4)ThinkaboutbeinginaclassthatwasdiscussinganissuetodowithSEXUALORIENTATION.
Howcomfortablewouldyoufeelaboutspeakingupandgivingyourviewsonthistopic?
VerySomewhatNotreallyNotatall
(5)Ifyouweretospeakupandgiveyourviewsonacontroversialissueduringaclassdiscussion,
howconcernedwouldyoubethatthefollowingwouldoccur:*
NotatAll
Concerned
Slightly
Concerned
Somewhat
Concerned
Very
Concerned
Extremely
Concerned
Theprofessorwouldcriticizemyviewsasoffensive.
Theprofessorwouldgivemealowergradebecauseof
myviews.
 
Theprofessorwouldsaymyviewsarewrong.
Otherstudentswouldcriticizemyviewsasoffensive.
Someonewouldpostcriticalcommentsaboutmyviews
onsocialmedia. 
Someonewouldfileacomplaintclaimingthatmyviews
violatedacampusharassmentpolicyorcodeofconduct. 
(6)Ifyouweretospeakupandgiveyourviewsaboutanon‐controversialissueduringaclass
discussion,howconcernedwouldyoubethatthefollowingwouldoccur:*
NotatAll
Concerned
Slightly
Concerned
Somewhat
Concerned
Very
Concerned
Extremely
Concerned
Theprofessorwouldcriticizemyviewsasoffensive.
Theprofessorwouldgivemealowergradebecauseof
myviews.
Theprofessorwouldsaymyviewsarewrong.
Otherstudentswouldcriticizemyviewsasoffensive.
Someonewouldpostcriticalcommentsaboutmyviews
onsocialmedia.
Someonewouldfileacomplaintclaimingthatmyviews
violatedacampusharassmentpolicyorcodeofconduct.
(7)NowthatyouhavetoldushowcomfortableYOUfeelinclassroomdiscussions,pleasetellus
howyouthinkmembersofvariousOTHERgroupsoncampusfeelinthoseclassroomdiscus‐
sions.Thinkabouteachofthefollowingcategoriesofstudentsatyouruniversity.Doyouthink
thatstudentsinthatcategoryaremorecomfortablesharingtheirviewsinaclassroomdiscus‐
sioncomparedtotheaveragestudent,lesscomfortablecomparedtotheaveragestudent,or
aboutthesameastheaveragestudent?*
Soc.Sci.2022,11,50211of13
MoreComfortable
SharingTheirViewsthan
theAverageStudent
LessComfortable
SharingTheirViewsthan
theAverageStudent
AbouttheSameas
theAverageStudent
Left‐leaningorprogressivestudents
Right‐leaningorconservativestudents
White/Pākehāstudents
Māoristudents
Pasifikastudents
Asianstudents
Femalestudents
Malestudents
Transgenderstudents
Gay/lesbian/bisexualstudents
Straightstudents
Hindustudents
Muslimstudents
Atheiststudents
Isthereanyothergroup,notlistedabove,thatyouthinkmaybeespeciallyuncom‐
fortablesharingtheirviews?[Freetextbox.]
(8)ThefollowingquestionsareaboutyourexperiencesONCAMPUSINGENERAL—including
classroomactivities,publiceventswithspeakers,meetingsofstudentorganizations,informal
gatherings,andconversationswithotherstudents.*
Morethan
OnceaWeek
EveryFew
Weeks
AFewTimes
aYear
OnceaYear
orLess
ItNever
Happens
Howfrequentlyareyoutreatedbadlyorunfairly
becauseofyourGENDER?
Howfrequentlyareyoutreatedbadlyorunfairly
becauseofyourPOLITICALVIEWS?
Howfrequentlyareyoutreatedbadlyorunfairly
becauseofyourRACEORETHNICITY?

Howfrequentlyareyoutreatedbadlyorunfairly
becauseofyourRELIGIOUSBELIEFS?

Howfrequentlyareyoutreatedbadlyorunfairly
becauseofyourSEXUALORIENTATION?

(9)ThinkingaboutSTUDENTSatyourcollege/university,wouldyousaymostarepoliticallyto
theleftofyouorpoliticallytotherightofyou?
● Mostaretotheleftofme
● Mostaretotherightofme
● Mosthavepositionsclosetomine
● Aboutasmanyaretotheleftofmeastotherightofme
● Don’tknow
(10)ThinkingaboutTEACHINGSTAFFatyourcollege/university,wouldyousaymostarepolit‐
icallytotheleftofyouorpoliticallytotherightofyou?
● Mostaretotheleftofme
● Mostaretotherightofme
● Mosthavepositionsclosetomine
● Aboutasmanyaretotheleftofmeastotherightofme
● Don’tknow
(11)ThinkingaboutADMINISTRATORSatyourcollege/university,wouldyousaymostarepo‐
liticallytotheleftofyouorpoliticallytotherightofyou?
● Mostaretotheleftofme
Soc.Sci.2022,11,50212of13
● Mostaretotherightofme
● Mosthavepositionsclosetomine
● Aboutasmanyaretotheleftofmeastotherightofme
● Don’tknow
(12)Howoftendoesyourcollege/universityexplicitlyfosterordefendviewpointdiversity?
● Veryfrequently
● Frequently
● Occasionally
● Rarely
● Veryrarely
● Never
(13)HowwouldyoudescribeyourPOLITICS?
● Left‐wing
● Right‐wing
● Centrist/moderate
● Prefernottosay
● Other[freetextbox]
(14)HowwouldyoudescribeyourETHNICITY/RACE?
● NZEuropean/Pākehā
● Māori
● Pasifika
● Asian
● Prefernottosay
● Other
(15)HowwouldyoudescribeyourSEX/GENDER?
● Male
● Female
● Prefernottosay
● Other[freetextbox]
(16)HowwouldyoudescribeyourSEXUALITY?
● Straight
● Gay
● Bisexual
● Prefernottosay
● Other[freetextbox]
(17)HowwouldyoudescribeyourRELIGIOUSBELIEFS?
● Notreligious
● Christian
● Hindu
● Muslim
● Buddhist
● Prefernottosay
● Other[freetextbox]
(18)Whatdegreeareyoustudyingtowards?Bachelorof
• Arts
• ArchitecturalStudies
• BiomedicalScience
• BuildingScience
• Commerce
• Communication
• DesignInnovation
• Education
• Engineering
• Health
• Laws
• Midwifery
Soc.Sci.2022,11,50213of13
• Music
• Science
(19)Whatuniversityareyouenrolledin?
● VictoriaUniversityofWellington
● UniversityofAuckland
● CanterburyUniversity
● UniversityofOtago
● WaikatoUniversity
● AucklandUniversityofTechnology
● LincolnUniversity
● MasseyUniversity
*Questionsmarkedwithanasteriskwerepresentedtoparticipantsonebyone,but
havebeenpresentedasmatrixtablesinthispaperforbrevity.
References
Bradley,GiffordW.1978.Self‐servingbiasesintheattributionprocess:Areexaminationofthefactorfictionquestion.Journalof
PersonalityandSocialPsychology36:56.
Dimock,Michael,andRichardWike.2020.AmericaIsExceptionalintheNatureofItsPoliticalDivide.Washington,DC:PewResearch
Center.November13.Availableonline:https://www.pewresearch.org/fact‐tank/2020/11/13/america‐is‐exceptional‐in‐the‐na‐
ture‐of‐its‐political‐divide/(accessedon20October2022).
FoundationforIndividualRightsandExpression.2017.SpeakingFreely:WhatStudentsThinkaboutExpressionatAmericanCol‐
leges.Availableonline:https://www.thefire.org/presentation/wp‐content/uploads/2017/10/11091747/survey‐2017‐speaking‐
freely.pdf(accessedon20October2022).
Grant,Jonathan,KirstieAnneHewlett,TamarNir,andBobbyDuffy.2019.FreedomofExpressioninUKUniversities.London:Kings
CollegeLondon.https://doi.org/10.18742/pub01‐010.
Hackett,Robin,andJavierRivera.2020.FreeSpeechandAcademicFreedomintheEraoftheAlt‐Right.RadicalTeacher118.
https://doi.org/10.5195/rt.2020.742.
Haidt,Jonathan,andGregLukianoff.2018.TheCoddlingoftheAmericanMind:HowGoodIntentionsandBadIdeasAreSettingupa
GenerationforFailure.London:PenguinUK.
Haller,BruceL.2019.FreedomofSpeechintheAcademicWorkplaceAcademicFreedomtoMicroaggressions,Tenure,Contracts
andtheCourts.JournalofHigherEducationTheory&Practice18:48–60.
Jackson,Liz.2021.Academicfreedomofstudents.EducationalPhilosophyandTheory53:1108–15.
KnightFoundation.2022.CollegeStudentViewonFreeExpressionandCampusSpeech2022:ALookatKeyTrendsinStudent
SpeechViewsSince2016.Availableonline:https://knightfoundation.org/wp‐content/uploads/2022/01/KFX_College_2022.pdf
(accessedon20October2022).
Kruger,Justin,andDavidDunning.1999.Unskilledandunawareofit:Howdifficultiesinrecognizingone’sownincompetencelead
toinflatedself‐assessments.JournalofPersonalityandSocialPsychology77:1121.
Matthews,Phillip.2022.PermissiontoSpeakFreely:IsFreeSpeechunderThreat?Availableonline:https://www.stuff.co.nz/na‐
tional/300575920/permission‐to‐speak‐freely‐is‐free‐speech‐under‐threat(accessedon20October2022).
Miller,RyanA.,ToniaGuida,StellaSmith,S.KierstenFerguson,andElizabethMedina.2018.Freespeechtensions:Respondingto
biasoncollegeanduniversitycampuses.JournalofStudentAffairsResearchandPractice55:27–39.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19496591.2017.1363051.
Oliphant,J.Baxter.2018.MostSayTheirFamilyIsOKwithDiscussingPolitics—ButItHelpsiftheFamilyAgrees.Washington,DC:Pew
ResearchCenter.November20.Availableonline:https://www.pewresearch.org/fact‐tank/2018/11/20/most‐say‐their‐family‐is‐
ok‐with‐discussing‐politics‐but‐it‐helps‐if‐the‐family‐agrees/(accessedon20October2022).
Reichman,Henry.2019.TheFutureofAcademicFreedom.Baltimore:JHUPress.
Smeltzer,Sandra,andAlisonHearn.2015.StudentrightsinanageofAusterity?“Security,”freedomofexpressionandtheneoliberal
university.SocialMovementStudies14:352–58.https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2014.945077.
Stevens,S.T.,P.Quirk,L.Jussim,andJ.Haidt.2022.TheCampusExpressionSurvey:StudentVersion.NewYork:HeterodoxAcademy.
Availableonline:https://heterodoxacademy.org/wp‐content/uploads/2022/02/Campus‐Expression‐Survey‐Administration‐
Manual‐updated‐February‐2022.pdf(accessedon20October2022).
TransparencyInternational.2022.CountryData.Availableonline:https://www.transparency.org/en/countries/new‐zealand(ac‐
cessedon20October2022).
WorldPopulationReview.2022.FreestCountries2022.Availableonline:https://worldpopulationreview.com/country‐rankings/fre‐
est‐countries(accessedon20October2022).
Zhou,S.,andS.C.Zhou.2022.UnderstandingtheCampusExpressionClimate:AResearchReportfrom2019,2020,and2021.NewYork:
HeterodoxAcademy.
Students' Perspective on Freedom of Expression and Hate Speech in Albanian Universities
Article
Full-text available
  • May 2024
This article presents an analysis of the perspective of university students in Albania toward freedom of expression and hate speech within the academic environment. This study confidently investigates Albanian university students’ attitudes and perceptions towards freedom of expression, its significance in academic institutions, and its relationship with principles of equality and non-discrimination. Based on survey data collected from 622 participants, the study examines student’s attitudes toward the freedom of expression and hate speech. Study results strongly support previous research that highlights the significance of freedom of expression for young people in high educational institutions. The high level of participant agreement on the importance of freedom of expression in this study provides further evidence of the universal recognition of this fundamental right. The study contributes valuable insights to the discourse on freedom of expression and its implications for fostering inclusive and respectful academic environments in Albania. Received: 20 February 2024 / Accepted: 30 April 2024 / Published: 5 May 2024
View
Free Speech and Academic Freedom in the Era of the Alt-Right
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2020
This essay is written in two parts: "The Weaponization of Free Speech," describes a series of events on a university campus. The narrative clarifies the nature of current right wing attacks on personnel and programs in women, gender, and sexuality studies, and in race and ethnic studies. "An Annotated Bibliography on Academic Freedom" collects and describes materials that can assist campus communities in building cultures of resistance and resilience in the face of these attacks.
View
Academic freedom of students
Article
Full-text available
  • Jun 2020
Academic freedom is often regarded as an absolute value of higher education institutions. Traditionally, its value is related to such topics as tenure, and the need for academic work to be free from undue political influence and other pressures that can challenge time-consuming research processes. However, when an analysis of student freedom begins with arguments about free research and free speech, undergirded as they generally are by liberal political philosophy, other considerations, related to broader views of freedom, can slip through the cracks. In this essay, I want to take a step back from typical discussions of academic freedom, to take a broader perspective, before considering how freedom relates to student experience. The first part of this essay explores diverse elaborations and defences of freedom: How it is upheld in the liberal philosophy of Kant, the critical pedagogy of Freire, existentialism, and the capabilities approach to development. Exploring the often contrasting insights and implications of these views, I then connect relevant theoretical understandings derived from them to an exploration of the experience of freedom and (lack thereof) of students (in a university context). This essay thus considers how student freedom, and student academic freedom, are more precarious concepts than typically assumed.
View
Free Speech Tensions: Responding to Bias on College and University Campuses
Article
Full-text available
  • Oct 2017
Despite the increasing development of bias response teams on college and university campuses, little scholarship has examined these teams and, in particular, team leaders’ approaches to understanding the role of free speech in responding to bias. Through semi-structured interviews, administrators who served on bias response teams at 19 predominantly White institutions described the need to balance free speech with other interests, recognize the nuance of First Amendment protections, and respond with educational conversations.
View
Student Rights in an Age of Austerity? ‘Security’, Freedom of Expression and the Neoliberal University
Article
Full-text available
  • Dec 2014
  • Soc Mov Stud
In this profile, we examine a worrying trend taking place in institutions of higher education around the world: a notable increase in their managerial corporatization and neoliberalization, combined with greater repression of freedom of expression on campuses under the aegis of ‘securitization’. We focus attention specifically on how these twinned trends have impacted student activism in a post-2008 austerity-driven economic environment. Drawing on examples from Canada and elsewhere, we highlight attempts to depoliticize and institutionalize student engagement, as well as evidence of students working to break free of myriad constraints to foment change in their respective communities.
View
Self-serving biases in the attribution process: A reexamination of the fact or fiction question
Article
Full-text available
  • Jan 1978
Examines the empirical evidence related to the notion of self-serving biases in causal attributions. D. T. Miller and M. Ross's (see record 1975-21041-001) reinterpretations of data that presumably reflect bias are discussed. The studies reviewed show relatively strong support for the causal asymmetry generally cited as evidence for self-serving, or defensive, attributions. Futhermore, a broadened self-serving bias formulation is presented, which suggests that under certain conditions, esteem needs may be best served by making counterdefensive attributions. Conditions that may be expected to elicit defensive or counterdefensive attributions are delineated. (46 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
View
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
Article
Full-text available
  • Jan 2000
People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it. Across 4 studies, the authors found that participants scoring in the bottom quartile on tests of humor, grammar, and logic grossly overestimated their test performance and ability. Although their test scores put them in the 12th percentile, they estimated themselves to be in the 62nd. Several analyses linked this miscalibration to deficits in metacognitive skill, or the capacity to distinguish accuracy from error. Paradoxically, improving the skills of participants, and thus increasing their metacognitive competence, helped them recognize the limitations of their abilities.
View
View
America Is Exceptional in the Nature of Its Political Divide
  • Michael Dimock
  • Richard Wike
Dimock, Michael, and Richard Wike. 2020. America Is Exceptional in the Nature of Its Political Divide. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. November 13. Available online: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/13/america-is-exceptional-in-the-nature-of-its-political-divide/ (accessed on 20 October 2022).
Freedom of Expression in UK Universities
  • Jonathan Grant
  • Kirstie Hewlett
  • Anne
  • Tamar Nir
  • Bobby Duffy
Grant, Jonathan, Kirstie Anne Hewlett, Tamar Nir, and Bobby Duffy. 2019. Freedom of Expression in UK Universities. London: Kings College London. https://doi.org/10.18742/pub01-010.
The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting up a Generation for Failure
  • Jonathan Haidt
  • Greg Lukianoff
Haidt, Jonathan, and Greg Lukianoff. 2018. The Coddling of the American Mind: How Good Intentions and Bad Ideas Are Setting up a Generation for Failure. London: Penguin UK.