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: This 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 using 5-point Likert-type response  scales. For descriptive reporting, responses of 4 (agree) or 5 (strongly agree) were categorized as  endorsement. Measures assessed ideological self-performance, domain-specific self censorship, coursework misrepresentation, perceived speech conditions, and affective  responses. A purposive subsample of 100 students participated in semi-structured interviews  examining subjective experiences of expression regulation.

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

Conclusion: Findings indicate that expression is frequently regulated in response to perceived  evaluative and social conditions. Behavioral alignment is endorsed alongside persistent  divergence between internal beliefs and outward expression, producing a pattern consistent with  cumulative strain. Integrity Fatigue is proposed as a construct capturing this pattern, distinct from  acute dissonance or situational conformity in its sustained and context-spanning 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. More recent work has also examined self-censorship and  expression regulation in institutional and academic environments, highlighting the role of  perceived social norms and reputational risk in shaping belief expression.²⁰,²¹ 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 October 2023 and March 2025. 

All participants were at least 18 years of age and currently enrolled as undergraduate students.  Participants self-identified ideologically as 67% liberal, 21% moderate, and 12% conservative.  The sample included 505 male and 947 female participants. Item-level nonresponse averaged  approximately 7% across survey measures. 

A purposive subsample of 100 participants (50 from each institution) was selected for the  qualitative component. Selection was based on variation in reported levels of self-censorship,  ideological self-performance, perceived alignment pressure, and belief–expression discrepancy  to ensure representation across a range of response patterns. 

Procedure

Data were collected using structured, in-person survey administration across both university  campuses. Participants were recruited using a convenience sampling approach in public  academic environments (e.g., libraries, student centers, and outdoor academic areas).  Individuals were approached using standardized, noncoercive recruitment scripts. Where  feasible, recruitment followed a systematic approach (e.g., approaching every nth seated or  passing student) to reduce selection bias. 

Participation was voluntary and anonymous. No identifying information (e.g., name, email  address, IP address, or device identifiers) was collected. Surveys were completed on paper  under conditions designed to minimize visibility of responses to others.

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

No financial compensation was provided for participation. Participation rates were not formally  tracked due to the anonymous, in-person administration format. 

Following survey completion, a subset of participants was invited to participate in semi structured interviews examining experiences of belief expression, perceived evaluative  conditions, and internal responses to expression regulation. Interviews were conducted  individually in private or low-visibility settings. 

Design

The study employed a cross-sectional mixed-methods design integrating quantitative survey data  with qualitative interview data. The primary objective was descriptive, with a focus on identifying  patterns of expression regulation, belief–expression discrepancy, and associated affective  experiences within university environments. 

A central feature of the survey design was instrumental neutrality, defined as the use of non evaluative wording and balanced item construction to minimize directional priming. This included  the use of symmetrical phrasing (e.g., both endorsement and non-endorsement conditions) and  avoidance of morally valenced language. 

Survey items were presented in randomized order to reduce sequencing effects. Sensitive  content was distributed across the instrument and separated by neutral filler items to reduce  carryover influence. 

Measures

Survey items were designed to assess behavioral, cognitive, and affective components of  expression regulation within academically and socially evaluative environments. All primary  variables were measured using 5-point Likert-type response scales ranging from 1 (strongly  disagree) to 5 (strongly agree), with higher values indicating greater endorsement of the  construct. 

For descriptive reporting, responses of 4 (agree) and 5 (strongly agree) were categorized as  endorsement of the item. Reported percentage values reflect the proportion of participants  indicating endorsement using this threshold. 

Items were analyzed at the individual level and, where applicable, interpreted collectively at the  construct level to identify patterns across domains.

Ideological Self-Performance 

Ideological self-performance was assessed using a single item measuring whether participants  reported exaggerating alignment with perceived dominant ideological views (e.g., “I sometimes  present my views as more aligned with dominant perspectives than they actually are”). This item  was analyzed as an indicator of behavioral amplification of expressed beliefs relative to internal  positions. 

Self-Censorship 

Self-censorship was assessed using three items measuring suppression of belief expression  across domains: gender identity, political beliefs, and family values (e.g., “I avoid sharing my  views on certain topics because of how they may be received”). Items were analyzed both  individually and collectively to assess domain-specific and generalized suppression of  expression. 

Coursework Misrepresentation 

Coursework misrepresentation was assessed using a single item measuring whether participants  reported modifying their expressed views in graded academic contexts (e.g., “I have adjusted my  responses in coursework to better align with what I believe is expected”). This item captured  behavioral adaptation under formal evaluative conditions. 

Alignment Pressure 

Alignment pressure was assessed using three items examining perceived necessity of agreement  with dominant frameworks for social or academic acceptance, including willingness to express  disagreement publicly (e.g., “I feel I need to publicly align with certain views to avoid negative  consequences”). Items were interpreted collectively to reflect perceived external pressure  shaping expression. 

Speech Conditions 

Speech conditions were assessed through items examining whether disagreement was  perceived as permissible or as carrying negative social or moral implications. These items were  analyzed descriptively to characterize perceived norms surrounding expression and dissent. 

Affective Outcomes 

Affective responses associated with expression regulation were assessed using items measuring  reported experiences of numbness, confusion, anxiety, relief following honest expression, fatigue  related to identity discourse, and desire for authenticity. Items were interpreted collectively to  describe the affective profile associated with expression regulation.

Additional Measures 

Exploratory variables included perceived moral confusion, interpersonal trust, and concealment  within close relationships. These variables were analyzed descriptively and included to provide  contextual insight into broader relational and cognitive patterns. 

Qualitative Component (Methods) 

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive subsample of participants to  examine subjective experiences of expression regulation. Interviews lasted approximately 45–60  minutes and followed a standardized protocol covering perceived conditions for disagreement,  expression decisions, internal belief–expression relationships, and emotional responses. 

All interviews were audio-recorded with participant consent and transcribed verbatim. Identifying  information was removed before analysis. 

Analytic Strategy 

Quantitative Analysis 

Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistical methods. Frequency distributions  and percentage endorsement rates were calculated for all primary variables based on the defined  endorsement threshold (responses of 4 or 5 on the Likert scale). 

Given the descriptive and exploratory nature of the study, analyses focused on identifying  patterns of co-occurrence across domains rather than testing formal hypotheses. Missing data  were handled using item-level listwise exclusion for descriptive analyses. 

Qualitative Analysis 

Qualitative data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Transcripts were reviewed iteratively to  identify recurring patterns in participants’ descriptions of expression regulation, perceived  evaluative conditions, and internal responses to belief–expression divergence. 

Codes were developed inductively and refined through comparison across transcripts. Themes  were retained based on recurrence and conceptual coherence across participants. Coding was  conducted by the principal investigator using an iterative review process consistent with the  descriptive aims of the study.

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 established ethical standards for minimal-risk  research involving human participants. Participation was voluntary, and individuals were  informed that they could decline participation or skip any item without consequence. 

All participants provided informed consent prior to participation. Survey participants completed a  written consent form before beginning the questionnaire. Interview participants provided written  consent for participation and audio recording and additionally provided verbal consent on record  at the start of each interview. 

No identifying information (e.g., names, contact information, or device identifiers) was collected.  All data were recorded anonymously and analyzed in aggregate form. Audio recordings were  transcribed and de-identified prior to analysis. 

All study data were stored on password-protected devices and secure, access-restricted  systems. Access to raw data was limited to the principal investigator. Data handling procedures  were designed to ensure confidentiality and to prevent unauthorized access throughout the  storage 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 frequency distributions 

and patterns of co-occurrence across domains. Findings reflect self-reported experiences within  the sample and do not imply causal relationships. 

Reported percentages reflect the proportion of participants endorsing each item, defined as  responses of 4 (agree) or 5 (strongly agree) on the Likert scale. 

Ideological Self-Performance 

Findings 

  • 88.2% of participants endorsed presenting themselves as more ideologically aligned than  their privately held beliefs 
  • 21% endorsed the view that reasoned disagreement is treated with respect

Interpretation 

The high prevalence of endorsed ideological self-performance, in conjunction with low perceived  respect for disagreement, suggests a consistent discrepancy between internal belief and  outward expression. Reported expression appears calibrated to anticipated social or evaluative  response rather than internal conviction. 

Self-Censorship 

Findings 

  • Gender identity: 78% of participants endorsed self-censorship 
  • Political beliefs: 72% endorsed self-censorship 
  • Family values: 68% endorsed self-censorship 
  • 17% endorsed the presence of explicit encouragement of honest disagreement

Interpretation 

Self-censorship was endorsed across multiple domains, with the highest prevalence in identity related contexts and substantial endorsement in broader belief domains. The distribution  suggests that suppression of expression functions as a generalized regulatory strategy rather  than a domain-specific response. Low endorsement of encouragement for disagreement  indicates limited perceived support for divergent expression. 

Coursework Misrepresentation 

Findings

  • 82.4% of participants endorsed modifying or misrepresenting their views in coursework • 13% endorsed receiving positive feedback for dissent 

Interpretation 

High rates of endorsed misrepresentation in graded academic contexts indicate that expression  regulation extends into formal evaluative settings. The low endorsement of reinforcement for  dissent suggests that alignment is perceived as more favorable within academic evaluation  structures. 

Speech Conditions 

Findings 

  • 57% of participants endorsed the view that disagreement is treated as harmful • 26% endorsed the view that disagreement is permissible without negative perception 

Interpretation 

A majority of participants endorsed the perception that disagreement carries negative social or  moral implications. Under such conditions, divergence may be experienced as consequential  rather than neutral, contributing to increased caution in expression. 

Alignment and Belonging 

Findings 

  • 61% of participants endorsed needing to align publicly to avoid being perceived as  harmful 
  • 29% endorsed being able to support others without adopting the same framework

Interpretation 

Belonging was frequently described as contingent on visible alignment with perceived dominant  frameworks. The relatively low endorsement of support without agreement suggests that  differentiated positions may be perceived as less acceptable within shared social environments. 

Affective Outcomes

Findings 

  • Numbness: 72% of participants endorsed this experience 
  • Confusion: 68% endorsed 
  • Anxiety: 64% endorsed 
  • Desire for authenticity: 61% endorsed 

Interpretation 

Participants endorsed a pattern of affective experiences including emotional dampening  (numbness), uncertainty (confusion), and anticipatory distress (anxiety), alongside a desire for  congruence between internal beliefs and outward expression. These responses co-occur with  reported patterns of expression regulation. 

Belief–Expression Discrepancy 

Findings 

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

Interpretation 

A substantial discrepancy was observed between privately held positions and reported  willingness to express those positions publicly. This pattern indicates that divergence is  frequently retained at the level of belief while being restricted at the level of expression. 

Cross-Domain Pattern 

Across domains, endorsed findings reflect a consistent configuration: 

  • high rates of behavioral alignment (self-performance, misrepresentation) • widespread suppression of expression (self-censorship) 
  • constrained perceived conditions for disagreement 
  • reported dependence of belonging on alignment 
  • substantial belief–expression discrepancies 
  • concurrent affective responses including numbness, confusion, and anxiety 

These elements were endorsed as co-occurring within the sample, suggesting that expression  regulation is experienced across multiple domains simultaneously rather than as isolated  behaviors.

Summary of Findings 

Participants frequently endorsed modifying outward expression in response to perceived social  and academic conditions. Behavioral alignment was endorsed across interpersonal and  evaluative contexts, often alongside retained internal divergence. 

This pattern is characterized by: 

  • modification of expressed beliefs 
  • suppression of disagreement 
  • adaptation of academic responses 
  • limited perceived support for dissent 
  • concurrent affective responses 

Taken together, these findings indicate that expression regulation is endorsed as a recurring  feature of the environments studied, with behavioral, cognitive, and affective components  occurring in combination. 

Qualitative Findings 

Qualitative interview data were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify recurring patterns in  participants’ descriptions of expression regulation, perceived evaluative conditions, and internal  responses to belief–expression divergence. Analysis followed an iterative coding process in  which transcripts were reviewed multiple times to identify recurrent semantic and conceptual  patterns. Codes were refined through comparison across transcripts and organized into higher order themes based on recurrence and conceptual coherence. 

Four primary themes were identified across participants: 

(1) anticipatory self-regulation, 

(2) perceived consequences of disagreement, 

(3) belief–expression compartmentalization, and 

(4) cumulative strain and desire for congruence. 

Theme 1: Anticipatory Self-Regulation 

Participants consistently described modifying or withholding expression prior to speaking, based  on expectations of how their views would be received. This process was described as automatic  and often occurring without deliberate reflection. 

“I usually know ahead of time what I can and can’t say. It’s not even something I think about  anymore—I just filter it.” 

“Before I say anything, I’m already thinking about how it’s going to land and whether it’s worth it.”

Participants frequently reported that this anticipatory regulation extended across both academic  and social settings, indicating that expression decisions were shaped by perceived environmental  expectations rather than situational factors alone. 

Theme 2: Perceived Consequences of Disagreement 

Participants described disagreement not simply as intellectual variation, but as carrying potential  social or academic consequences. These consequences were often framed in terms of  reputational risk, social exclusion, or negative evaluation. 

“It’s not like you just disagree—it feels like you’re saying something wrong or offensive.” 

“You can tell pretty quickly which opinions are safe and which ones aren’t. If you cross that line, it  changes how people see you.” 

Several participants described adjusting their expressed views specifically to avoid being  perceived as harmful, insensitive, or misaligned with dominant norms. This perception  contributed to a general reluctance to express dissenting views, particularly in group or public  settings. 

Theme 3: Belief–Expression Compartmentalization 

A clear distinction between privately held beliefs and publicly expressed positions emerged  across interviews. Participants described maintaining internal viewpoints while presenting  modified or aligned versions externally. 

“What I actually think and what I say in class are usually not the same.” 

“There’s what I believe, and then there’s what I say out loud. They’re not always connected.” 

This compartmentalization was often described as necessary for navigating academic and social  environments. Participants did not typically report changing their underlying beliefs, but rather  adapting how those beliefs were expressed or whether they were expressed at all. 

Theme 4: Cumulative Strain and Desire for Congruence 

Participants described a sense of fatigue associated with ongoing monitoring and regulation of  expression. This strain was characterized by emotional exhaustion, detachment, and a desire for  greater alignment between internal beliefs and outward expression.

“It gets exhausting always having to think about what you’re allowed to say.” “Sometimes it just feels easier to not say anything at all.” 

At the same time, many participants expressed a desire for environments in which they could  express their views without anticipating negative consequences. 

“I wish I could just say what I actually think without worrying about how it’s going to affect  everything.” 

This theme reflects the experiential dimension of expression regulation, linking behavioral  adaptation with affective responses and motivation toward authenticity. 

Integration with Quantitative Findings 

The qualitative findings provide contextual support for the patterns observed in the survey data.  Reports of anticipatory self-regulation and perceived consequences of disagreement align with  high rates of self-censorship and ideological self-performance. Descriptions of belief–expression  compartmentalization correspond with the observed discrepancy between private belief and  public expression. Reports of cumulative strain and desire for congruence parallel the affective  outcomes identified in the quantitative results, including numbness, confusion, anxiety, and  desire for authenticity. 

The qualitative data suggest that expression regulation is not experienced as isolated decision making, but as an ongoing process shaped by perceived environmental conditions. These findings  support the interpretation of expression regulation as a sustained and context-spanning  phenomenon rather than a series of discrete behaviors. 

Discussion

The present study examined patterns of expression regulation among undergraduate students  within contemporary university environments. Across domains, participants endorsed high rates  of ideological self-performance, self-censorship, and modification of expressed views in both  social and academic contexts. These behavioral patterns co-occurred with perceived alignment  pressure and affective experiences including numbness, confusion, and anxiety. Taken together,  the findings indicate that expression regulation is not isolated to specific situations, but is  reported as a recurring feature of environments perceived as socially and academically  evaluative. 

Findings reflect endorsement-based patterns derived from Likert-scale responses and should be  interpreted as indicators of reported presence rather than intensity of experience. 

Expression Regulation Under Evaluative Conditions 

The prevalence of endorsed self-censorship and ideological self-performance is consistent with  established literature on impression management and self-presentation, which demonstrates  that individuals adapt outward expression in response to perceived audience expectations.¹⁰ The  present findings extend this framework by suggesting that such regulation is not confined to  interpersonal contexts, but is also reported within formal evaluative settings, including graded  academic work. 

Participants frequently endorsed modifying coursework responses, indicating that expression  regulation may operate in contexts where evaluation is structurally embedded. This pattern aligns  with research on conformity under evaluative pressure, in which individuals adjust responses  when outcomes are tied to performance or perceived judgment.¹¹,¹³ In the current sample, the  convergence of social and academic evaluation appears associated with widespread reported  behavioral adjustment. 

Perceived Conditions for Disagreement 

Participants endorsed relatively low levels of perceived support for dissent, alongside higher  endorsement of alignment pressure and perceptions of disagreement as carrying negative  implications. These patterns are consistent with prior research on self-censorship, which  indicates that individuals may withhold or modify expression when they anticipate reputational or  social consequences.¹⁴,¹⁵ 

When disagreement is perceived as carrying interpersonal or moral implications rather than  functioning as neutral intellectual variation, expression becomes linked to social standing. Under  such conditions, regulation of expression may function as a strategy for maintaining stability  within both academic and peer environments. 

Affective Correlates of Expression Regulation 

Participants endorsed affective experiences including numbness, confusion, and anxiety in  conjunction with patterns of expression regulation. These responses are consistent with research  on Cognitive Dissonance, which demonstrates that discrepancies between internal beliefs and  external behavior are associated with psychological discomfort.⁷ 

However, the present findings suggest a pattern that extends beyond discrete instances of  dissonance. Rather than reflecting isolated inconsistencies, participants reported repeated  regulation of expression across domains. The co-occurrence of behavioral adaptation and  

affective responses suggests that the psychological experience associated with expression  regulation may accumulate over time. 

Integrity Fatigue

The behavioral, perceptual, and affective patterns observed in this study are consistent with a  broader experiential process conceptualized here as Integrity Fatigue. Integrity Fatigue refers to  the cumulative psychological strain associated with sustained divergence between privately held  beliefs and publicly expressed positions in environments perceived as evaluative. 

While related to constructs such as Cognitive Dissonance,⁷ self-monitoring,¹⁷ and emotional  labor,¹⁸, Integrity Fatigue is distinct in several respects. First, it emphasizes repeated and  context-spanning regulation of expression rather than discrete instances of behavioral  inconsistency. Second, it incorporates both behavioral and affective dimensions, capturing not  only the act of regulation but the reported experiences of fatigue, detachment, and reduced  authenticity. Third, it situates these processes within environments in which divergence is  perceived to carry consequence, linking internal experience to external conditions. 

The present findings do not establish causal relationships; however, the consistency with which  behavioral adaptation, belief–expression discrepancy, and affective responses were co endorsed supports the utility of Integrity Fatigue as a descriptive framework for understanding  sustained expression regulation. 

Integration of Quantitative and Qualitative Findings 

The qualitative findings provide contextual support for the patterns observed in the survey data.  Participants described anticipatory self-regulation, perceived consequences of disagreement,  and distinctions between private belief and public expression. These accounts align with the high  rates of endorsed self-censorship and ideological self-performance observed in the quantitative  results. 

Descriptions of ongoing monitoring of expression and reported fatigue correspond with the  affective outcomes identified in the survey data. Taken together, the integration of quantitative  and qualitative findings suggests that expression regulation is experienced not as isolated  decision-making, but as an ongoing process shaped by perceived environmental conditions. 

Limitations 

Several limitations should be considered. First, the study relies on self-reported data, which may  be influenced by recall bias, subjective interpretation, or social desirability effects. Second, the  cross-sectional design limits the ability to assess temporal relationships between expression  regulation and affective outcomes. 

Third, while the qualitative component provides insight into participant experiences, coding was  conducted by a single researcher, and formal interrater reliability was not assessed. Future  studies employing multiple coders and formal reliability metrics would strengthen qualitative  rigor.

Finally, the sample was drawn from two universities and may not generalize to other institutional  or cultural contexts. 

Implications and Future Directions 

The findings suggest that expression regulation may be a salient feature of environments  perceived as evaluative, with potential implications for student experience, classroom  engagement, and perceptions of intellectual openness. Future research should examine these  patterns across a broader range of institutional contexts and incorporate longitudinal designs to  assess how expression regulation and associated outcomes develop over time. 

Further work is needed to operationalize Integrity Fatigue as a measurable construct. This  includes the development of multi-item scales, psychometric evaluation, and examination of  relationships between expression regulation, perceived environmental conditions, and  psychological outcomes. 

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. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. Basic Books.
  2. Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist, 44(4), 709–716.
  3. Mikulincer, M., & Shaver, P. R. (2007). Attachment in adulthood: Structure, dynamics, and change. Guilford Press.
  4. Meyer, I. H. (2003). Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: Conceptual issues and research evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 129(5), 674–697.
  5. Pachankis, J. E. (2007). The psychological implications of concealing a stigma: A cognitive–affective–behavioral model. Psychological Bulletin, 133(2), 328–345.
  6. Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94(3), 319–340.
  7. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
  8. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
  9. Leary, M. R. (2001). Toward a conceptualization of interpersonal rejection. In M. R. Leary (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 3–20). Oxford University Press.
  10. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Doubleday.
  11. Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621.
  12. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 24(2), 43–51.
  13. Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193(5), 31–35.
  14. Hayes, A. F., Glynn, C. J., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Willingness to self-censor: A construct and measurement tool for public opinion research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(3), 298–323.
  15. Hayes, A. F. (2007). Exploring the forms of self-censorship: On the spiral of silence and the use of opinion expression. Journal of Communication, 57(4), 785–802.
  16. Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57(5), 271–282.
  17. Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 526–537.
  18. Hochschild, A. R. (1983). The managed heart: Commercialization of human feeling. University of California Press.
  19. Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Why societies need dissent. Harvard University Press.
  20. Hayes, A. F., & Matthes, J. (2018). Computational methods for studying self-censorship and public opinion climates. Journal of Communication, 68(1), 7–29.
  21. Vraga, E. K., & Bode, L. (2020). Correction as a solution for health misinformation on social media. American Journal of Public Health, 110(S3), S278–S280.