Performative Progressivism and Integrity Fatigue: Expression Regulation Under Evaluative Pressure in Higher Education

Principal Investigator and Author: Kevin M. Waldman
psychFORM Research Lab

Performative Progressivism and Integrity Fatigue: Expression Regulation Under Evaluative Pressure in Higher Education

Abstract

Background: The present study examines the regulation of belief expression in contemporary university environments. While existing frameworks address conformity, concealment, and dissonance, less attention has been given to sustained behavioral adaptation under conditions where belonging and evaluation are perceived as contingent on ideological alignment. We introduce Integrity Fatigue as a construct describing cumulative depletion associated with repeated divergence between privately held beliefs and publicly expressed positions.

Methods:A cross-sectional, mixed-methods design assessed 1,452 undergraduate students at Northwestern University (n = 720) and the University of Michigan (n = 732) between 2023 and 2025. Data were collected via in-person, anonymous surveys employing mirrored item construction and neutral wording. Measures captured ideological self-performance, domain-specific self-censorship, coursework misrepresentation, perceived speech conditions, and affective correlates.

Results: Ideological self-performance was reported by 88.2% of participants, with 82.4% reporting misrepresentation of views in coursework. Self-censorship was reported across domains (gender identity: 78%; political beliefs: 72%; family values: 68%). A pronounced belief–expression gap was observed, with 77% reporting disagreement with a gender-policy item and 2% indicating willingness to express this publicly. Affective indicators included numbness (72%), confusion (68%), anxiety (64%), and desire for authenticity (61%).

Conclusion: Expression appears systematically regulated in response to perceived evaluative and social risk. Behavioral alignment is maintained despite persistent internal divergence, producing a profile consistent with cumulative strain. Integrity Fatigue is proposed as a construct capturing this pattern, distinct from acute dissonance or situational conformity in its sustained, behaviorally embedded nature.

Keywords: ideological conformity; self-censorship; impression management; identity regulation; authenticity; campus climate

Introduction

Institutions of higher education function as both instructional systems and social environments in which expression, belonging, and evaluation are continuously negotiated. Within such environments, the regulation of self-expression is not solely a function of belief, but of anticipated response. When inclusion or evaluation is perceived as contingent on alignment, expression may be shaped less by internal conviction than by external conditions.

Relational and attachment-based models suggest that individuals calibrate disclosure according to perceived responsiveness, with reduced expression under conditions of anticipated rejection¹,². Similarly, concealment frameworks indicate that individuals inhibit expression of potentially stigmatized beliefs as a strategy for managing social threat⁴,⁵. At the cognitive level, models of self-discrepancy and dissonance predict that divergence between internal states and external behavior produces identifiable forms of strain, particularly when such divergence is sustained⁶,⁷.

Across these frameworks, a shared implication emerges: when environments signal that divergence carries consequence, individuals may engage in behavioral alignment independent of internal belief. This dynamic is likely to be amplified in contexts where evaluation is formalized and outcomes are consequential, such as graded academic work or peer-visible participation.

Existing research has examined conformity, impression management, and silence under perceived social pressure⁸–¹². However, these constructs are typically conceptualized as situational or episodic. Less attention has been given to the cumulative effects of repeated behavioral alignment under conditions in which expression is continuously regulated across contexts.

The present study addresses this gap by examining the prevalence and structure of expression regulation in university environments. Specifically, it assesses whether patterns of self-performance, suppression, and misrepresentation co-occur with sustained divergence between private belief and public expression, and whether such patterns are associated with identifiable affective profiles.

To capture this process, we introduce Integrity Fatigue, defined as cumulative psychological depletion associated with sustained incongruence between privately held beliefs and publicly expressed positions under conditions of perceived evaluative or social pressure. Unlike cognitive dissonance, which emphasizes intrapsychic inconsistency, or impression management, which emphasizes strategic self-presentation, Integrity Fatigue refers to the longitudinal accumulation of strain resulting from repeated behavioral regulation across contexts.

Despite extensive research on conformity and self-presentation, limited work has examined the cumulative psychological effects of sustained expression regulation across evaluative contexts. The present study examines:

  • prevalence of ideological self-performance
  • domain-specific self-censorship
  • misrepresentation in evaluative academic contexts
  • discrepancies between private belief and public expression
  • associated affective patterns

By integrating these domains, the study aims to characterize expression regulation not as isolated behavior, but as a patterned response to environmental conditions.

Methods

Participants

Participants were 1,452 undergraduate students recruited from two selective universities in the Midwestern United States: Northwestern University (n = 720) and the University of Michigan (n = 732). Data were collected between Fall 2023 and Spring 2025.

All participants were at least 18 years of age and currently enrolled as undergraduate students. Across institutions, participants self-identified as 67% liberal, 21% moderate, and 12% conservative. The sample included 505 male and 647 female participants . Nonresponse rates across items averaged approximately 7%.

Procedure

Data were collected using structured, in-person survey administration. Participants were approached in public campus locations (e.g., libraries, student centers, outdoor academic spaces) using standardized, noncoercive recruitment scripts.

Participation was voluntary and anonymous. No identifying information (e.g., name, email, IP address, device identifiers) was collected. Surveys were completed either on paper or tablet, depending on participant preference. Participants were positioned to minimize visual overlap of responses.

Enumerators were trained to maintain neutral affect, avoid paraphrasing survey items, and refrain from offering clarification beyond verbatim repetition. This protocol was designed to reduce interviewer influence and minimize demand characteristics.

To reduce satisficing and contextual variability associated with remote survey methods, all data collection occurred in person under consistent administration procedures.

Design

The study employed a cross-sectional survey design with a primary focus on descriptive pattern identification rather than hypothesis testing. The instrument was constructed to capture behavioral, cognitive, and affective components of expression regulation within a single session.

A central feature of the design was instrumental neutrality, defined as the use of non-evaluative wording and balanced item structure to avoid directional priming. All primary constructs were assessed using paired items representing opposing conditions (e.g., alignment vs. non-alignment, expression vs. suppression).

Item order was randomized at both the pair level and within item pairs. Sensitive content blocks were separated by neutral filler items to reduce carryover effects. Response formats included symmetric Likert-type scales (e.g., strongly disagree to strongly agree) and dichotomous (yes/no) responses where conceptually appropriate.

Measures

Mirrored Item Construction

All core constructs were assessed using dual-item mirrored pairs, in which each concept was measured through opposing formulations. For example, perceived pressure to align was paired with perceived freedom not to align.

This structure served two methodological functions:

  1. Reduction of response bias: By presenting opposing formulations, the design reduces acquiescence bias and limits the influence of socially desirable responding.
  2. Internal validation: Consistency across mirrored items allows for within-subject verification of response stability.

Rather than relying on single-item endorsement, constructs were interpreted through patterns across paired items.

Construct Domains

The survey instrument assessed the following domains:

  • Ideological self-performance: behavioral exaggeration of alignment with perceived expectations
  • Self-censorship: intentional suppression of belief expression across domains
  • Coursework misrepresentation: alteration of expressed views in graded academic contexts
  • Speech conditions: perceptions of disagreement as permissible or harmful
  • Alignment pressure: perceived necessity of visible agreement for social or academic inclusion
  • Affective outcomes: including numbness, confusion, anxiety, and desire for authenticity
  • Belief–expression discrepancy: divergence between privately held beliefs and publicly expressed positions

Each domain was assessed through multiple items or mirrored item pairs, allowing interpretation at the construct level rather than the individual item level.

Analytic Strategy

Quantitative Analysis

Data were analyzed using descriptive statistical procedures, including frequency distributions and percentage endorsement rates for each construct.

The primary analytic focus was pattern identification, rather than inferential testing. Given the large sample size and exploratory aims of the study, results are presented as descriptive prevalence estimates rather than population-level inferences.

Mirrored item pairs were evaluated within participants to assess internal consistency of responses. Patterns were interpreted across domains to identify convergent behavioral trends (e.g., co-occurrence of self-censorship, misrepresentation, and alignment pressure).

Group-level comparisons (e.g., by institution or gender) were examined descriptively using proportional differences. These comparisons were interpreted cautiously and used primarily to assess consistency of patterns across contexts.

Interpretive Framework

Interpretation focused on identifying recurring configurations of behavior and perception across domains. Specifically, analysis examined whether:

  • behavioral adaptation (e.g., self-performance, misrepresentation) co-occurred with
  • cognitive patterns (e.g., belief–expression divergence) and
  • affective outcomes (e.g., numbness, anxiety)

Rather than treating findings as isolated outcomes, constructs were interpreted as components of a broader pattern of expression regulation under perceived evaluative pressure.

Methodological Safeguards

Several safeguards were implemented to strengthen internal validity and reduce bias:

  • Neutral item wording: All survey items avoided moralized or evaluative language.
  • Mirrored item validation: Opposing formulations enabled detection of inconsistent or norm-driven responses.
  • Randomization: Item order was randomized to reduce sequencing effects.
  • In-person administration: Reduced satisficing and increased response engagement.
  • Private completion conditions: Minimized reputational pressure during response.
  • Standardized enumerator behavior: Reduced interviewer influence.

These safeguards were designed to ensure that observed patterns reflect stable participant perceptions rather than artifacts of measurement or administration.

Ethical Considerations

The study was conducted in accordance with ethical standards for minimal-risk research involving human participants. Participation was voluntary, and participants were informed that they could skip any item without consequence.

No identifying information was collected, and all data were analyzed in aggregate form. Procedures were designed to minimize risk and protect participant anonymity throughout the data collection and analysis process.

Results

Overview

Results are presented as descriptive patterns of reported behavior, perception, and affect within academically and socially evaluative environments. Analyses focus on convergence across domains rather than isolated item endorsement. Findings reflect self-reported patterns within the sample and do not imply causal relationships.

Ideological Self-Performance

Findings

  • 88.2% of participants reported presenting themselves as more ideologically aligned than their actual beliefs
  • 21% reported that reasoned disagreement is treated with respect

Pattern Interpretation

The high prevalence of self-performance, coupled with low perceived respect for disagreement, indicates a consistent asymmetry between outward expression and perceived environmental tolerance for divergence. Expression appears calibrated to anticipated response rather than internal conviction. This configuration is consistent with impression management processes in evaluative settings¹⁰.

Self-Censorship

Findings

  • Gender identity: 78%
  • Political beliefs: 72%
  • Family values: 68%
  • 17% reported explicit encouragement of honest disagreement

Pattern Interpretation

Self-censorship is reported across both institutions, with the highest prevalence in identity-related contexts but substantial extension into non-identity domains. The distribution suggests that suppression functions as a generalized regulatory strategy rather than a topic-specific response. The low rate of explicit encouragement for disagreement indicates limited environmental signaling that divergence is permissible, reinforcing precautionary suppression. This pattern aligns with concealment-based models of behavioral regulation under perceived social risk⁴,⁵.

Coursework Misrepresentation

Findings

  • 82.4% reported misrepresenting their views in coursework
  • 13% reported receiving positive feedback for dissent

Pattern Interpretation

High rates of misrepresentation in graded contexts indicate that expression regulation extends into formal evaluative outputs. The low rate of reinforcement for dissent suggests that alignment is perceived as instrumentally advantageous within academic evaluation structures. This pattern is consistent with conformity processes under authority-linked evaluation¹¹.

Speech Conditions

Findings

  • 57% reported that disagreement is treated as harmful
  • 26% reported that disagreement is permissible without negative perception

Pattern Interpretation

Perceptions of disagreement as harmful introduce a normative constraint on expression beyond disagreement as intellectual variation. Under such conditions, divergence is framed as consequential rather than merely oppositional, increasing the anticipated cost of expression. This pattern is consistent with social silence dynamics in which perceived sanctionability reduces public expression of minority views¹².

Alignment and Belonging

Findings

  • 61% reported needing to align publicly to avoid being perceived as harmful
  • 26% reported being able to support others without adopting the same framework

Pattern Interpretation

Belonging appears frequently experienced as contingent on visible alignment. The low endorsement of support without agreement suggests limited perceived legitimacy of differentiated positions within shared environments. Alignment thus functions less as identity expression and more as a condition of participation.

Affective Outcomes

Findings

  • Numbness: 72%
  • Confusion: 68%
  • Anxiety: 64%
  • Desire for authenticity: 61%

Pattern Interpretation

The affective profile is characterized by concurrent dampening (numbness), uncertainty (confusion), anticipatory stress (anxiety), and motivation toward congruence (desire for authenticity). This configuration is consistent with sustained self-discrepancy, in which repeated divergence between internal belief and external behavior produces cumulative strain⁶.

Belief–Expression Discrepancy

Findings

  • 77% reported disagreement with a gender-policy item
  • 2% reported willingness to express this disagreement publicly

Pattern Interpretation

The magnitude of the belief–expression gap indicates that internal positions are frequently retained while public expression is suppressed. This pattern reflects regulation at the level of expression rather than transformation at the level of belief. Such discrepancies are consistent with spiral-of-silence processes, in which perceived lack of support inhibits public articulation of views¹².

Cross-Domain Pattern

Across domains, findings form a coherent configuration:

  • high rates of behavioral alignment (self-performance, misrepresentation)
  • widespread suppression of expression (self-censorship)
  • constrained speech conditions (harm attribution to disagreement)
  • contingent belonging (alignment as condition of inclusion)
  • large belief–expression discrepancies
  • convergent affective indicators of strain

These elements co-occur rather than appear independently, suggesting a shared underlying process of expression regulation under perceived evaluative and social pressure.

Summary of Findings

The data indicate that participants frequently regulate outward expression in response to perceived environmental conditions. Behavioral alignment is maintained across interpersonal and evaluative contexts despite persistent internal divergence.

This pattern is characterized by:

  • repeated modification of expressed belief
  • sustained suppression of divergence
  • adaptation of academic outputs to perceived expectations
  • limited perceived permission for disagreement
  • concurrent affective strain

Taken together, these findings are consistent with a process in which expression is externally regulated while belief remains internally differentiated.

The convergence of behavioral, cognitive, and affective patterns supports the characterization of Integrity Fatigue as cumulative strain associated with sustained incongruence between private belief and public expression over time.

Discussion

Overview of Findings

The present study examined patterns of expression regulation among undergraduate students in contemporary university environments. Across domains, participants reported consistent behavioral adaptation in response to perceived social and academic contingencies associated with belief expression.

Seven core patterns were observed. First, ideological self-performance was reported at high rates, indicating systematic adjustment of outward expression. Second, self-censorship was reported across multiple domains, extending beyond identity-related topics into broader areas of belief. Third, misrepresentation in coursework suggests that expression regulation extends into formal evaluative contexts. Fourth, disagreement—particularly on identity-related issues—was frequently perceived as socially or morally consequential. Fifth, belonging was often experienced as contingent on visible alignment. Sixth, a substantial discrepancy was observed between private belief and public expression. Finally, participants reported affective patterns characterized by numbness, confusion, and anxiety, alongside a desire for authenticity.

These patterns do not appear as isolated behaviors, but as components of a coherent configuration in which expression is regulated across contexts.

Expression Regulation Under Evaluative Conditions

A central finding of the study is the consistency with which participants report modifying expression in environments perceived as evaluative. The prevalence of ideological self-performance and coursework misrepresentation indicates that expression is not only shaped in interpersonal interaction but also in contexts where outcomes are formally assessed.

This pattern is consistent with models of impression management in which individuals regulate self-presentation to align with perceived expectations when evaluation carries consequence. However, the present findings extend beyond situational presentation. The observed belief–expression discrepancy indicates that alignment is maintained even in the presence of stable internal divergence, suggesting regulation at the level of behavior rather than belief.

In this sense, expression appears systematically calibrated to perceived environmental conditions, with divergence suppressed not because it is absent, but because it is perceived as carrying potential cost.

Generalization of Suppression Across Domains

Self-censorship was reported across multiple domains, with highest prevalence in identity-related contexts but substantial presence in political and personal domains. This distribution suggests that suppression is not restricted to specific topics, but functions as a generalized strategy once environments are perceived as evaluative.

Such generalization implies that participants are not making isolated decisions about expression, but are operating under a broader expectation that divergence may be consequential. Under these conditions, suppression becomes a default regulatory response rather than a situational adjustment.

The low reported presence of explicit encouragement for disagreement further suggests that this pattern emerges in environments where permissibility is ambiguous rather than explicitly restricted. In the absence of clear signals, individuals appear to adopt precautionary suppression as a stable behavioral strategy.

Speech Conditions and Perceived Consequence

The finding that disagreement is frequently perceived as harmful indicates a shift in how divergence is interpreted. Rather than functioning solely as intellectual disagreement, divergence may be experienced as socially or morally consequential.

When disagreement is framed in this way, the cost of expression extends beyond being incorrect to being negatively evaluated at a personal or social level. Under such conditions, anticipatory regulation of expression is likely, as individuals seek to avoid outcomes associated with perceived harm.

This pattern is consistent with social silence dynamics, in which individuals withhold views when they perceive them to be unsupported or sanctionable. In the present data, perceived consequence appears to function as a mechanism through which expression is constrained across contexts.

Contingent Belonging and Alignment

Participants frequently reported that belonging is contingent on visible alignment. The majority endorsement of alignment as necessary for avoiding negative perception, combined with low endorsement of support without agreement, suggests limited perceived space for differentiation within social environments.

This pattern indicates that alignment behaviors may function as conditions of participation rather than expressions of internal belief. Under such conditions, individuals may prioritize alignment to maintain inclusion, even in the presence of internal divergence.

Importantly, these findings do not indicate uniform agreement with prevailing norms, but rather suggest that alignment may be behaviorally maintained independent of internal endorsement.

Integrity Fatigue as a Distinct Construct

The convergence of behavioral, cognitive, and affective patterns observed in this study supports the formulation of Integrity Fatigue as a distinct construct.

Integrity Fatigue is defined here as cumulative psychological strain associated with sustained incongruence between privately held beliefs and publicly expressed positions under conditions where expression is perceived as carrying evaluative or social consequence.

The construct is differentiated from related frameworks in several respects:

  • Cognitive dissonance emphasizes intrapsychic inconsistency, whereas Integrity Fatigue reflects repeated behavioral regulation under external conditions
  • Impression management describes strategic presentation, whereas Integrity Fatigue

captures the cumulative effects of sustained reliance on such strategies

  • Concealment frameworks focus on suppression of identity or belief, whereas Integrity Fatigue integrates suppression, performance, and misrepresentation across contexts

The present data support this construct across three levels:

Behavioral

High prevalence of self-performance, self-censorship, and misrepresentation indicates repeated divergence between internal belief and external behavior.

Cognitive

Large belief–expression discrepancies and reported uncertainty regarding permissible expression indicate sustained monitoring and regulation of behavior.

Affective

The co-occurrence of numbness, confusion, and anxiety, alongside a desire for authenticity, indicates a profile consistent with cumulative strain associated with sustained self-discrepancy.

Taken together, these levels suggest a recurring process:

Perceived consequence → behavioral alignment → temporary stabilization → continued divergence → cumulative strain

Integrity Fatigue is proposed as a construct capturing this longitudinal accumulation of strain resulting from repeated expression regulation under evaluative conditions.

Integration of Findings

Across domains, findings form a coherent pattern rather than isolated effects. Behavioral alignment, suppression, and misrepresentation co-occur with belief–expression divergence and affective strain, suggesting a shared underlying process.

Participants appear to maintain internal differentiation while regulating external expression across contexts. This indicates that environmental conditions may shape the expression of belief without necessarily altering belief itself.

The consistency of patterns across two institutions suggests that these dynamics may not be institution-specific, but may reflect broader features of environments in which expression is perceived as carrying consequence.

Limitations

Several limitations should be considered. The study relies on self-reported data, which may be subject to recall bias and interpretive variability. Although mirrored item construction reduces response bias, it cannot eliminate it.

The cross-sectional design limits conclusions about temporal development. While the proposed construct of Integrity Fatigue is supported by pattern convergence, longitudinal research is necessary to examine accumulation over time.

The sample is limited to two selective universities, which may constrain generalizability. Findings should therefore be interpreted as descriptive patterns within the sampled population rather than population-level estimates.

Implications and Future Directions

The present findings suggest that expression regulation may represent an important dimension of psychological functioning within evaluative environments. Future research may examine how sustained incongruence between belief and expression develops over time and how it relates to identity formation and psychological well-being.

Longitudinal designs would allow examination of whether patterns consistent with Integrity Fatigue intensify, stabilize, or resolve under different conditions. Experimental approaches may assess how variations in perceived evaluative pressure influence expression behavior.

Further work is also needed to refine measurement of Integrity Fatigue, including development of composite indices and validation across diverse populations and institutional contexts.

Conclusion

The present study examined patterns of ideological self-performance, self-censorship, and belief–expression discrepancy among undergraduate students in contemporary university environments.

Findings indicate that participants frequently regulate outward expression in response to perceived social and academic conditions, resulting in sustained divergence between internal beliefs and external behavior. This pattern extends across interpersonal, academic, and identity-related domains.

The convergence of behavioral adaptation, belief–expression discrepancy, and affective strain supports the formulation of Integrity Fatigue as a construct describing cumulative psychological strain associated with sustained expression regulation under evaluative conditions.

These findings suggest that environmental contingencies may shape how beliefs are expressed without necessarily altering the beliefs themselves. Under such conditions, behavioral alignment may function as an adaptive strategy for maintaining inclusion and evaluation outcomes, while contributing to longer-term strain associated with sustained incongruence.

Findings are based on self-reported data and descriptive analyses and should be interpreted accordingly. Further research is needed to examine the development, generalizability, and psychological implications of Integrity Fatigue across contexts.

References

  1. Bowlby J. A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development. New York, NY: Basic Books; 1688.
  2. Ainsworth MDS. Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist. 1686;44(4):706–716.
  3. Mikulincer M, Shaver PR. Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2007.
  4. Meyer IH. Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin. 2003;126(5):674–667.
  5. Pachankis JE. The psychological implications of concealing a stigma: A cognitive–affective–behavioral model. Psychological Bulletin. 2007;133(2):328–345.
  6. Higgins ET. Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review. 1687;64(3):316–340.
  7. Festinger L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1657.
  8. Baumeister RF, Leary MR. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin. 1665;117(3):467–526.

  9. Leary MR. Toward a conceptualization of interpersonal rejection. In: Leary MR, ed. Interpersonal Rejection. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2001:3–20.

  10. Goffman E. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York, NY: Doubleday; 1656.
  11. Cialdini RB, Goldstein NJ. Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology. 2004;55:561–621.
  12. Noelle-Neumann E. The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication. 1674;24(2):43–51.