The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Disliked but Free to Speak: Cognitive Ability Is Related to Supporting Freedom of Speech for Groups Across the Ideological Spectrum
Open accessAbstract
Freedom of speech for all citizens is often considered as a cornerstone of democratic societies. In three studies, we examined the relationship between cognitive ability and support for freedom of speech for a variety of social groups across the ideological spectrum ( N 1 varies between 1,373 and 18,719, N 2 = 298, N 3 = 395). Corroborating our theoretical expectations, although cognitive ability was related to more affective prejudice toward relatively conservative groups and less affective prejudice toward relatively liberal groups (Study 2), people with higher levels of cognitive ability were more in favor of freedom of speech for all target groups (Studies 1–3). The relationship between cognitive ability and freedom of speech support was mediated by intellectual humility (preregistered Study 3). These results indicate that cognitive ability contributes to support for the democratic right of freedom of speech for all social–ideological groups.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“In both state and trait form, intellectually humbler people are more willing to let outgroup members speak freely and show greater interest in joining bipartisan groups aimed at discussing political issues 34,105 .”
From Predictors and consequences of intellectual humility (2022) · cites this paper as [105]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4
Bates, D., Mächler, M., Bolker, B., & Walker, S. (2015) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v067.i01 · Cited by 86,835
lavaan : An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling
Rosseel, Y. (2012) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v048.i02 · Cited by 27,955
lmerTest Package: Tests in Linear Mixed Effects Models
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B., & Christensen, R. H. B. (2017) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v082.i13 · Cited by 24,346
Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.6.845 · Cited by 2,452
Cognitive and Interpersonal Features of Intellectual Humility
Leary, M. R., Diebels, K. J., Davisson, E. K., Jongman-Sereno, K. P., Isherwood, J. C., Raimi, K. T., Deffler, S. A., & Hoyle, R. H. (2017) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167217697695 · Cited by 539
The Development and Validation of the Comprehensive Intellectual Humility Scale
Krumrei-Mancuso, E. J., & Rouse, S. V. (2015) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1080/00223891.2015.1068174 · Cited by 450
keersmaecker, J. D., & Roets, A. (2017) · Intelligence · doi:10.1016/j.intell.2017.10.005 · Cited by 329
Self-citationkeersmaecker, J. D., Dunning, D. A., Pennycook, G., Rand, D. G., Sanchez, C. J., Unkelbach, C., & Roets, A. (2019) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167219853844 · Cited by 180
Self-citationOnraet, E., Hiel, A. V., Dhont, K., Hodson, G., Schittekatte, M., & Pauw, S. S. W. D. (2015) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.2027 · Cited by 156
The psychological roots of intellectual humility: The role of intelligence and cognitive flexibility
Zmigrod, L., Zmigrod, S., Rentfrow, P. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2019) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2019.01.016 · Cited by 142
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- Ammons R. B., 1962, Quick test
- Pearson, 2012, WAIS-IV-NL: Technische Handleiding [Dutch WAIS: Technical manual]
- Smith T. W., 2019, General social surveys, 1972–2018 [machine-readable data file]. NORC ed. 1 data file (64,814 logical records) and 1 codebook (3,758 pp.)
- Tallentyre S. G., 1906, The friends of Voltaire
- United Nations General Assembly, 1948, Universal declaration of human rights (217 [III] A)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Predictors and consequences of intellectual humility
Porter, T., Elnakouri, A., Meyers, E. A., Shibayama, T., Jayawickreme, E., & Grossmann, I. (2022) · Nature Reviews Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44159-022-00081-9 · Cited by 248
Metadata
- Authors
- De keersmaecker, J., Bostyn, D. H., Van Hiel, A., & Roets, A.
- Affiliations
- Department of Developmental, Personality and Social Psychology, Ghent University, Belgium
- Ghent University (BE)
- Venue
- Social Psychological and Personality Science
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2020-03-12
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 34-41
- ISSN
- 1948-5506 (ISSN-L)
- 1948-5514
- OpenAlex
- W3011968403
- Cited by
- 27
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 5.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Social Psychological and Personality Science (publishedVersion)
- Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Law › Law, Rights, and Freedoms
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Academic Freedom and Politics
- Keywords
- freedom of expression, cognitive ability, ideological bias, intellectual humility, social groups, conservative groups
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Disliked but Free to Speak: Cognitive Ability Is Related to Supporting Freedom of Speech for Groups Across the Ideological Spectrum. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1948550619896168
- The paper
- De keersmaecker, J., Bostyn, D. H., Van Hiel, A., & Roets, A. (2021). Disliked but Free to Speak: Cognitive Ability Is Related to Supporting Freedom of Speech for Groups Across the Ideological Spectrum. Social Psychological and Personality Science. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550619896168
