Free Speech or Prejudice? (Anti-)Woke Discourse on EVRAS

Details

Supervisors

Yzebyt Vincent

Faculty

Faculté de psychologie, logopédie, sexologie et des sciences de la famille

Degree label

Master [120] en sciences psychologiques, à finalité approfondie

Abstract

enFreedom of expression is a cornerstone of democratic society, yet prior research shows that its endorsement is not always unconditional and may serve as a rhetoric to justify prejudice discourse or to oppose progressive causes. Building on the literature on ideological malleability (Knowles et al., 2009) and the justification-suppression model (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003), this study examined whether such strategic use of free speech extend beyond racial issues to debate on gender and sexual education in Belgium. Using a 2 (initial statement: progressive or anti-progressive) by 3 (reaction: appeal to freedom of speech, report of prejudice, or no reaction) between subject experiment design, participants (N: 191) were exposed to a polarized initial statement followed by one of the two types of reactions, or no reaction. They then evaluated the initial statement in terms of perceive prejudice, reported their political tolerance, and indicated their support for acceptance of free speech and support for restriction on offensive speech. Social Dominance Orientation was assessed as a potential moderator. Contrary to what was expected, anti-egalitarian individuals did not change their support for acceptance of free speech when faced with the anti-progressive statement followed by a reaction appealing for free speech. The findings further our understanding of the conceptualization of freedom of expression in our society and highlight the role of political motives.