A new European study identifies four distinct dimensions of free speech tolerance and links permissive attitudes to stronger beliefs in conspiracy theories and lower trust in societal institutions. The research, conducted by scholars from the University of Maribor in Slovenia, was published in Personality and Individual Differences and involved data from 563 adults across Europe.
Traditionally, support for freedom of expression has been treated as a single overarching attitude. The new approach, however, distinguishes four categories of speech tolerance: offensive speech, disagreement, heterodox or unconventional ideas, and socially divisive speech that could threaten social cohesion.
Led by Nejc Plohl, with colleagues Dean Korošak and Boris Podobnik, the team sought to understand how these dimensions cluster within individuals and whether specific profiles of free speech support align with demographics, ideology, and epistemic beliefs. Participants completed a 24-item questionnaire assessing tolerance across the four types of speech, alongside measures of political ideology, education, gender, conspiracy beliefs, and trust in science, politics and journalism.
Using confirmatory factor analysis, the researchers found that the four speech-tolerance concepts were distinct and could not be collapsed into a single general attitude. This supported moving beyond a one-size-fits-all view of free speech to a more nuanced framework.
Applying latent profile analysis to the responses, the study identified three distinct profiles of free speech support. About 57 per cent of participants fell into a “conditional tolerance” group, characterised by average tolerance for offensive speech and disagreement, but somewhat lower tolerance for heterodox and socially divisive speech. Roughly 20 per cent formed a “low tolerance” profile, consistently showing the least acceptance of controversial or norm-challenging speech. The remaining 23 per cent clustered into a “broad tolerance” profile, exhibiting high permissiveness across all four categories, including ideas many would deem offensive or socially destabilising.
In examining how these profiles map onto personal characteristics, the broad-tolerance group was more likely to be male and better educated, with women more represented in the low-tolerance group. Age did not significantly distinguish the profiles. Politically, the low-tolerance group leaned slightly to the right of centre, the broad-tolerance group trended more liberal, and the conditional-tolerance group occupied the centre ground.
The researchers also found notable patterns in epistemic beliefs. Those in the broad-tolerance group reported the highest levels of belief in conspiracy theories and the lowest trust in science, politics, and journalism. By contrast, the conditional-tolerance group showed higher institutional trust and lower endorsement of conspiracy theories.
The authors caution that the study relies on an abstract questionnaire that asks participants to imagine hypothetical types of speech rather than respond to real-world scenarios. They note that attitudes captured in theory may diverge from how individuals react to actual statements or targets in practice. The cross-sectional design also means the direction of any relationships between free speech attitudes and institutional trust cannot be established, and unmeasured factors could influence both.
Thus, while the findings indicate distinct profiles of free speech support and their links to epistemic beliefs, the researchers emphasise the need for more comprehensive, longitudinal work to untangle causality and deepen understanding of how these attitudes unfold in real-world settings.
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.
