Researchers Map Dynamics of Self-Censorship in New Study

A new study from researchers at Arizona State University (ASU) and the University of Michigan has unveiled the intricate dynamics of self-censorship, illustrating how individuals navigate the risks of expressing dissent in an increasingly surveilled society. Published on November 3, 2025, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, this research introduces a mathematical model that sheds light on the strategic choices people make when faced with potential punishment for speaking out.

The collaboration features contributions from Professor Stephanie Forrest and Assistant Professor Joshua J. Daymude from ASU’s School of Computing and Augmented Intelligence, alongside political scientist Robert Axelrod from the University of Michigan. Their work aims to decode the conditions under which individuals opt for self-censorship instead of voicing dissent, especially in environments where authoritarian practices are prevalent.

Understanding the Mechanics of Dissent

The paper, titled “Strategic Analysis of Dissent and Self-Censorship,” examines the ongoing interaction between individuals and governing authorities. According to Daymude, “Modern technologies—from facial recognition to algorithmic content moderation—have transformed the landscape of dissent.” The researchers developed a simulation to explore how individuals balance their urge to express dissent with their fear of repercussions. Notably, authorities also adapt their surveillance and policies to minimize dissent and enforcement costs.

Findings indicate that self-censorship is not merely driven by fear; rather, it is a rational, strategic response influenced by factors such as boldness, surveillance intensity, and the severity of punishments. The model identifies three key behavioral responses: compliance, self-censorship, and defiance. The researchers discovered that in contexts where punishments are applied uniformly, such as blanket bans or internet shutdowns, self-censorship becomes the dominant behavior. In contrast, when faced with proportional punishments—like escalating penalties for repeated offenses—individuals may be more inclined to take calculated risks in expressing their dissent.

Forrest emphasizes the importance of early dissent, stating, “A population’s willingness to speak out early on, and suffer the negative consequences, has an outsized effect on how long it takes an authority to suppress all dissent.” The study suggests that the costs associated with punishing an entire population simultaneously can deter total suppression, allowing for pockets of resistance.

The Broader Implications of Self-Censorship

The research implications extend beyond theoretical applications. The pressures that influence public expression are pervasive, affecting individuals in various contexts, from authoritarian regimes to users on global social media platforms. The study highlights how self-censorship can proliferate and become entrenched, making it difficult to reverse once it is established. Daymude warns, “Self-censorship can start as a form of self-protection. But when people begin to silence themselves preemptively, before any punishment occurs, it becomes a powerful tool for control.”

By clarifying the strategic nature of dissent, the researchers aim to inform policymakers, social media platform designers, and advocates for free expression. Forrest concludes, “Ultimately, our findings show that preserving open dialogue depends not only on laws or technology but on the courage of individuals and the collective willingness to keep speaking, even when it’s uncomfortable.”

This study represents a significant contribution to understanding the delicate balance between individual expression and societal control, revealing the complexities that shape our modern communication landscape.