Self‐Censorship as a Socio‐Political‐Psychological Phenomenon: Conception and Research
Abstract
Self‐censorship of information, defined as an act of intentionally and voluntarily withholding information from others in the absence of formal obstacles, serves as an obstacle to the proper functioning of a democratic society, because it prevents free access to information, freedom of expression, and the flow of information. It is of key importance in societies, as it blocks information that may shed new light on various societal issues. Nevertheless, it is recognized that in certain cases self‐censorship is necessary. The present article provides a comprehensive conceptual framework for self‐censorship and examines it from various angles with empirical examples. It describes its nature and psychological foundations, the motivations that underlie it, the conditions that facilitate its practice, its societal and individual consequences, and, finally, its measurement challenges.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Selective disclosure could result in pluralistic ignorance because only certain political views are expressed, and disagreement is suppressed.
“This could result in pluralistic ignorance (an exaggerated appearance of homogeneity) because only certain political views are expressed, and disagreement is suppressed233–236.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [236]
Cites
Social Influence: Compliance and Conformity
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015 · Cited by 6,077 · see citing works
Political conservatism as motivated social cognition.
Jost, J. T., Glaser, J., Kruglanski, A. W., & Sulloway, F. J. (2003) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339 · Cited by 4,904 · see citing works
Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic World
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259200 · Cited by 2,776 · see citing works
Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135228 · Cited by 1,845 · see citing works
On Being Both With Us and Against Us: A Normative Conflict Model of Dissent in Social Groups
Packer, D. J. (2008) · Personality and Social Psychology Review · doi:10.1177/1088868307309606 · Cited by 311 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts
Jost, J. T., Baldassarri, D. S., & Druckman, J. N. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00093-5 · Cited by 276 · see citing works
Strycharz, J., & Segijn, C. M. (2024) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2023.114490 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bar‐Tal, D.
- Affiliations
- Tel Aviv University (IL)
- Corresponding author
- Bar‐Tal, Daniel
- ORCID
- Bar‐Tal, Daniel
- Venue
- Political Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2017-01-26
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- S1
- Pages
- 37-65
- ISSN
- 0162-895X (ISSN-L)
- 1467-9221
- OpenAlex
- W2579924179
- Cited by
- 127
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 31 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3
- FWCI
- 18.90
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Political Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Law, Rights, and Freedoms
- Social Sciences › Law › Freedom of Expression and Defamation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Keywords
- self-censorship, freedom of expression, access to information, democratic society, motivation, social consequences, information flow
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review