社群媒體上的自我審查現象本身在台灣幾乎沒有被研究過，然而這卻可能是一個每天都發生無數次的現象。眾所周知地，人們會在不同的社交圈中呈現不同的自己。這種在公共場合隱藏真實的偏好和意見，而公開表達與真實想法不一致觀點的偏好偽造行為，這可能源於在社交活動中遭到排斥或負面評價，這類社會壓力的恐懼。因此，自我審查可被視為個體在社交互動中的一種自我保護策略。在現代社群媒體的環境中，由於用戶的言論和表達可以迅速地被大量觀眾看見，這種自我審查的行為尤其顯著，本研究發現近八成的受試者在社群媒體上會因為各種非正式障礙的因素，將原先自己想發布的內容，最終決定不發布或對內容大幅度修改，在社群媒體上自我審查後進行偏好偽造。
這種自我審查的行為在社群媒體的使用者中可能對自由表達產生重大影響。當社群媒體使用者在發布內容前過度顧慮發布後可能的後果，他們可能會直接選擇不發表某些原本想發表的觀點或訊息，或者是在內容準備發布送出前，大幅度地修改自己原先想發布的內容，修改成比較「安全」的內容。本研究蒐集了800份有效問卷進行統計分析，分析後發現偏好偽造與自我審查的現象相當普遍，且在各種自我審查行為中，影響的因素各有不同。
本研究發現女性在發現自身想法與多數意見不同的時候，比起男性更傾向於不發言；年紀越輕者越頻繁大幅度修改原本欲發布的內容；政治態度越自由者，較政治態度保守者，更頻繁地進行自我審查；對白色恐怖有較高認知的人，較傾向在與多數意見不同時決定不留言，此外他們也更常在留言前先行參考他人留言…等。在現代高度客製化的社群媒體上，過於普遍的自我審查，將使民眾難以獲得有價值的「第二意見」，進而限縮了社群媒體上各種訊息的流通和觀點的多樣性，考量到群眾智慧效應，這將是一件可惜的事。

This study explores and examines the phenomenon of self-censorship on social media among Taiwanese users, a topic that has received rather limited research attention. Self-censorship is commonly caused by fear of negative evaluation or social rejection, leading individuals to hide their true preferences and express opinions that do not necessarily reflect their true thoughts. In this study, it has been found that this preference falsification behavior is a very common practice on social media, where ideas and opinions can be swiftly spread to a wide audience.
The study, based on 800 valid questionnaires, found that nearly 80% of respondents engaged in self-censorship by either refraining from posting their original thoughts or significantly altering the content. The key factors influencing self-censorship include gender, age, political attitudes, and awareness of major historical events like the White Terror in Taiwan. Women were more likely than men to avoid expressing views that differed from the majority opinion, younger individuals more frequently altered their posts, and those with liberal political views or heightened awareness of the White Terror were more prone to self-censorship. This widespread self-censorship poses a threat to freedom of expression and limits the diversity of opinions on social media, potentially hindering the exchange of valuable “second opinions” in the digital public sphere.

中文部分
吳重禮、湯京平、黃紀，1999，我國「政治功效意識」測量之初探。選舉研究，6(2)，23-44。
黃維明譯，凱斯．桑斯坦著，2002，《網路會顛覆民主嗎？》，台北：新新聞文化事業股份有限公司。
廖月娟、周宜芳譯，丹尼爾．康納曼、奧利維．席波尼、凱斯．桑斯坦著，2021，《NOISE雜訊：人類判斷的缺陷》，台北：遠見天下文化出版股份有限公司。
國家通訊傳播委員會(NCC)：111年傳播市場報告精要。（發布日：112/01/16）
英文部分
Andrew F. Hayes.(2007). Exploring the Forms of Self-Censorship: On the Spiral of Silence and the Use of Opinion Expression Avoidance Strategies, Journal of Communication, Volume 57, Issue 4, December 2007, Pages 785–802.
Arendt, Hannah. (1968). The Origins of Totalitarianism. Harcourt Brace & World.
Chang, Charles., Manion, Melanie. (2021). Political Self-Censorship in Authoritarian States: The Spatial-Temporal Dimension of Trouble. Comparative Political Studies, 54(8), 1362–1392.
Das, Sauvik, and Adam Kramer. (2021). “Self-Censorship on Facebook”. Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 7 (1):120-27.
Goffman, Erving. (1959). The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. Doubleday.
Hayes, Andrew & Scheufele, Dietram & Huge, Michael. (2006). Nonparticipation as Self-Censorship: Publicly Observable Political Activity in a Polarized Opinion Climate. Political Behavior, 28(3), 259-283.
James L. Gibson, Joseph L. Sutherland.(2023). Keeping Your Mouth Shut: Spiraling Self-Censorship in the United States, Political Science Quarterly, Volume 138, Issue 3, Fall 2023, Pages 361–376.
Kuran, Timur. (1995). Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification. Harvard University Press.
Masuda, Yoneji. (1990). Managing in the Information Society : Releasing Synergy Japanese Style (Oxford: Blackwell)
Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth. (1974), The Spiral of Silence A Theory of Public Opinion. Journal of Communication, 24: 43-51.
Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth. (1993).The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion--Our Social Skin. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1993.
Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth. (2006). The Spiral of Silence a Theory of Public Opinion. Journal of Communication, 24(2), 43-51.
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. (1974). "A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation." Language 50, no. 4 (1974): 696-735.
Tapscott, Don. (1996). The Digital Economy : Promise and Peril in the Age of Networked Intelligence. McGraw-Hill. Table of contents
Van Duyn, Emily, (2021). Democracy Lives in Darkness: How and Why People Keep Their Politics a Secret. (Journalism and Political Communication Unbound). Oxford University Press.
Vul, Edward, and Harold Pashler. (2008). Measuring the Crowd Within:Probabilistic Representations Within Individuals. Psychological Science, 19(7), 645-647.
DataReportal(2024) “DIGITAL 2024: TAIWAN”發布時間：2024年02月23日，網 址：https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2024-taiwan