{"title":"课堂上的自我审查","authors":"Sarah Greenberg , Daniel F. Stone","doi":"10.1016/j.socec.2025.102393","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>We present results from an extensive study (14 classes, 407 students) of the degree to which college students self-censor broad political views in classroom settings. We estimate the prevalence of self-censorship by comparing private and public reporting of views. We also study the accuracy of student beliefs about classmate self-censorship by eliciting beliefs about classmates’ private views. We find that students were approximately equally likely to report being socially liberal, economically liberal, and leaning Democratic in private and public settings. However, of students who privately reported being socially conservative, Republican, and economically conservative outside of economics classes, 38%, 45%, and 30% (respectively) did not reveal this publicly. Students in introductory classes were more likely to self-censor. The order of responses options was randomized and had a large effect on the degree of self-censorship of Republicanism. Student beliefs about the distributions of classmates’ political views were mostly accurate but there was substantial underestimation of the percentages of economic conservatives and non-partisans. Results from a follow-up survey suggest that social consequences for students who publicly stated that they were conservative were limited, but not non-existent.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51637,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","volume":"119 ","pages":"Article 102393"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Self-censorship in the classroom\",\"authors\":\"Sarah Greenberg , Daniel F. Stone\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.socec.2025.102393\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>We present results from an extensive study (14 classes, 407 students) of the degree to which college students self-censor broad political views in classroom settings. We estimate the prevalence of self-censorship by comparing private and public reporting of views. We also study the accuracy of student beliefs about classmate self-censorship by eliciting beliefs about classmates’ private views. We find that students were approximately equally likely to report being socially liberal, economically liberal, and leaning Democratic in private and public settings. However, of students who privately reported being socially conservative, Republican, and economically conservative outside of economics classes, 38%, 45%, and 30% (respectively) did not reveal this publicly. Students in introductory classes were more likely to self-censor. The order of responses options was randomized and had a large effect on the degree of self-censorship of Republicanism. Student beliefs about the distributions of classmates’ political views were mostly accurate but there was substantial underestimation of the percentages of economic conservatives and non-partisans. Results from a follow-up survey suggest that social consequences for students who publicly stated that they were conservative were limited, but not non-existent.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51637,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics\",\"volume\":\"119 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102393\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"96\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804325000606\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"经济学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics","FirstCategoryId":"96","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214804325000606","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"经济学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
We present results from an extensive study (14 classes, 407 students) of the degree to which college students self-censor broad political views in classroom settings. We estimate the prevalence of self-censorship by comparing private and public reporting of views. We also study the accuracy of student beliefs about classmate self-censorship by eliciting beliefs about classmates’ private views. We find that students were approximately equally likely to report being socially liberal, economically liberal, and leaning Democratic in private and public settings. However, of students who privately reported being socially conservative, Republican, and economically conservative outside of economics classes, 38%, 45%, and 30% (respectively) did not reveal this publicly. Students in introductory classes were more likely to self-censor. The order of responses options was randomized and had a large effect on the degree of self-censorship of Republicanism. Student beliefs about the distributions of classmates’ political views were mostly accurate but there was substantial underestimation of the percentages of economic conservatives and non-partisans. Results from a follow-up survey suggest that social consequences for students who publicly stated that they were conservative were limited, but not non-existent.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly the Journal of Socio-Economics) welcomes submissions that deal with various economic topics but also involve issues that are related to other social sciences, especially psychology, or use experimental methods of inquiry. Thus, contributions in behavioral economics, experimental economics, economic psychology, and judgment and decision making are especially welcome. The journal is open to different research methodologies, as long as they are relevant to the topic and employed rigorously. Possible methodologies include, for example, experiments, surveys, empirical work, theoretical models, meta-analyses, case studies, and simulation-based analyses. Literature reviews that integrate findings from many studies are also welcome, but they should synthesize the literature in a useful manner and provide substantial contribution beyond what the reader could get by simply reading the abstracts of the cited papers. In empirical work, it is important that the results are not only statistically significant but also economically significant. A high contribution-to-length ratio is expected from published articles and therefore papers should not be unnecessarily long, and short articles are welcome. Articles should be written in a manner that is intelligible to our generalist readership. Book reviews are generally solicited but occasionally unsolicited reviews will also be published. Contact the Book Review Editor for related inquiries.