Epistemology[edit]
Public[edit]
Scholars have misguided interpretations of "public opinion," confusing it with government and therefore limiting the understanding of the term as it relates to the theory. Noelle-Neumann clarifies this by creating three distinct meanings of "public." First, is the legal term used to define "public land" or "public spaces." Second concerns the issues of people as seen in journalism. Finally, public as in "public eye" is used in social psychology and refers to the way people think outwardly about their relationships. Public, in this sense, could be characterized as social psychology. This is the meaning intended to emphasize how subjects feel in social settings during conducted research.
Scholars have marveled in amazement at the power public opinion has in making regulations, norms, and moral rules triumph over the individual self without ever troubling legislators, governments, or courts for assistance.[11]
Opinion[edit]
"Common Opinion" is how the Scottish social philosopher David Hume referred to public opinion in his 1739 published work A Treatise of Human Nature. Agreement and a sense of the common are what lay behind the English and French "opinion."[11] In researching the term opinion (Meinung in German) researchers were led back to Plato's Republic. In Plato's Republic, a quote from Socrates concluded that opinion takes the middle position. Immanuel Kant considered the opinion to be an "insufficient judgment, subjectively as well as objectively."[17] How valuable opinion may be was left out; however, the fact that it is suggested to be unified agreement of a population or segment of the population, was still considered.[11]
Public opinion[edit]
The term public opinion first emerged in France during the eighteenth century. The definition of public opinion has been debated over time. There has not been much progress in locking in one classification of the phrase public opinion, however Hermann Oncken, a German historian, stated
It was said to be a "fiction that belonged in a museum of the history of ideas; it could only be of historical interest."[11]
In contradiction to that quote, the term public opinion never fell out of use. During the early 1970s, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann was creating the theory of the spiral of silence. She was attempting to explain why Germans who disagreed with Hitler and the Nazis remained silent until after his regime ended. Behavior like that has come to be known as the spiral of silence theory. Noelle-Neumann began to question if she was indeed getting a handle on what public opinion actually was. "The spiral of silence might be one of the forms in which public opinion appeared; it might be a process through which a new, youthful public opinion develops or whereby the transformed meaning of an old opinion spreads."[11]
The American sociologist Edward Ross described public opinion in 1898 using the word "cheap". "The equation of 'public opinion' with 'ruling opinion' runs like a common thread through its many definitions. This speaks to the fact that something clinging to public opinion sets up conditions that move individuals to act, even against their own will."[18]
Other scholars point out that the emergence of the public opinion depends on an open public discourse rather than "on the discipline imposed by an apparent majority dominant enough to intimidate but whose views may or may not support actions that are in the common interest."[19] They have also considered whose opinion establishes public opinion, assumed to be persons of a community who are ready to express themselves responsibly about questions of public relevance. Scholars have also looked into the forms of public opinion, said to be those that are openly expressed and accessible; opinions that are made public, especially in the mass media. Controversy surrounding this term spiraled around both words combining to form the phrase.[11]
Neumann (1955) suggests two concepts on public opinion:
Public Opinion as Rationality: The public opinion or "dominant view" comes after conscious rational public discussion. Childs (1965) and Wilson (1933) believe that "the rational model is based on the notion of an enlightened, rational public that is willing to and capable of participating in political processes." In all, it is political and necessary for generating social change.
Public Opinion as Social Control: This is at the root of the spiral of silence theory. It means that "opinions that can be expressed without risking sanctions or social isolation, or opinions that have to be expressed in order to avoid isolation (Noelle-Neumann 1983). Social systems require cohesion. To achieve this, individuals are threatened with social isolation.
In mass media contexts[edit]
Media and public opinion[edit]
Mass media's effects on both public opinion and the perception of the public opinion are central to the spiral of silence theory. One of the earliest works that called attention to the relationship between media and the formation of public opinion was Walter Lippmann's book "Public Opinion," published in 1922.[20] Ideas of Lippmann regarding the effects of media influenced the emergence of the spiral of silence theory. As she is building the spiral theory, Noelle-Neumann states "the reader can only complete and explain the world by making use of a consciousness which in large measure has been created by the mass media."[18]
Agenda-setting theory is another work that Noelle-Neumann builds on as she is characterizing media's effect on the public opinion. Agenda-setting theory describes the relationship between media and public opinion by asserting that the public importance of an issue depends on its salience in the media.[21] Along with setting the agenda, the media further determine the salient issues through a constant battle with other events attempting to gain place in the agenda.[18] The media battle with these news alternatives by creating "pseudo-crises" and "pseudo-novelties."[18]
Media's characteristics as a communication tool further affect people's perception of their own ideas in regard to the public opinion.[18] According to Noelle-Neumann, the media are a "one-sided, indirect, public form of communication, contrasting threefold with the most natural form of human communication, the conversation."[18] When an issue hits the media and proves salient, a dominant point of view usually emerges. These characteristics of the media in particular further overwhelm one's individual ideas.
While some media communication theories assume a passive audience, such as the Hypodermic Needle model,[22] the spiral model assumes an active audience "who consumes media products in the context of their personal and social goals."[22] Knowledge "gained from the mass media may offer ammunition for people to express their opinions and offer a rationale for their own stance."[23] Ho et al. point out that "among individuals who paid high amount of media attention, those who have a low fear of isolation were significantly more likely to offer a rationale for their own opinion than were those who have a high fear of isolation."[23]
Noelle-Neuman regards media as central to the formulation of the Spiral of Silence Theory, whereas some scholars argue whether the dominant idea in one's social environment overwhelms the dominant idea that media propose as the perceived social norm.[24][25] Some empirical research align with this perspective; suggesting that the "micro-climate" of an individual overwhelms the effects of the media.[25] Other articles further suggest that talking with others is the primary way of understanding the opinion climate.[26]
Social media[edit]
Current literature suggests that the spiral model can be applied to the social media context. Researchers, Chaudhry & Gruzd (2019) found that social media actually weakens this theory. They contest that the spiral of silence suggests that the minority are uncomfortable expressing their opinions because of the fear of isolation, but, "the vocal minority are comfortable expressing unpopular views, questioning the explanatory power of this popular theory in the online context."[27]
However, in another study, Gearhart and Zhang examine whether or not the use of social media will increase people's motivation to express their opinions about political issues. The results suggest that social media users "who have received a strong negative reaction to their politically related posts are likely to censor themselves, exemplifying the spiral of silence effect".[28] Another study found that the fear of isolation causes people to not want to share their opinion on social media in the first place. Similar to the Gearhart and Zhang study, results from this study showed that people are more likely to self-censor information on social media by not posting some things that are political, choosing what and what not to follow or like, etc.[29]
Another research confirms the positive relationship between speaking out and issue importance on the social media context as well: individuals who view gay bullying as a significant social issue are more likely to comment on Facebook.[30]
Artificially generated social engagement is also worth noting. As social media becomes more and more important in our daily lives, deceptive social bots have been successfully applied for manipulating online conversations and opinions.[31] Social bots are social media accounts managed by computer algorithms. They can automatically generate content and interact with human users, often impersonating or imitating humans.[32] Current research shows that "social bots" are being used on a large scale to control the opinion climate to influence public opinion on social media.[33] In some cases only a small number of social bots can easily direct public opinion on social media and trigger a spiral of silence model.[34] For example, scholars find out that social bots can affect political discussion around the 2016 U.S. presidential election[35] and the 2017 French presidential election.[36]
Assumptions[edit]
Perception[edit]
The Spiral of Silence Theory rests on the assumption that individuals will scan their environment to assess the climate to possibly find the dominant point of view. Perception matters because these opinions influence an individual's behavior and attitudes.[4] Sherif (1967) believes individuals use frames of reference based on past experience to inform their perception -- "social environment as a frame of reference for interpreting new information has important implications for public opinion research." It is also worth mentioning that the assessment of one's social environment may not always correlate with reality.[9]
Vocal minority and hardcore[edit]
The theory explains a vocal minority (the complement of the silent majority) by stating that people who are highly educated, or who have greater affluence, and the few other cavalier individuals who do not fear isolation (if that is accepted to be the causal factor), are likely to speak out regardless of public opinion.[50] It further states that this minority is a necessary factor of change while the compliant majority is a necessary factor of stability, with both being a product of evolution. There is a vocal minority, which remains at the top of the spiral in defiance of threats of isolation.
This theory calls these vocal minorities the hardcore nonconformist or the avant-garde. Hardcore nonconformists are "people who have already been rejected for their beliefs and have nothing to lose by speaking out."[41] The hardcore has the ability to reconfigure majority opinion. While the avant-garde are "the intellectuals, artists, and reformers in the isolated minority who speak out because they are convinced they are ahead of the times."[41]
Hardcore is best understood when the majority voices loses power in public opinion due to a lack of alternatives. People's opinions may affect narrow-minded views as a result of the hard core's efforts to educate the public. Hardcore may be instrumental in changing public opinion even though it is frequently engaged in irrational acts to prove their point.
The rising influence of the internet and social media[edit]
Isolating the factors that remove isolation[edit]
The concept of isolation has a variety of definitions, dependent upon the circumstances it is investigated in. In one instance the problem of isolation has been defined as social withdrawal, defined as low relative frequencies of peer interaction.[66][67] Other researchers have defined isolation as low levels of peer acceptance or high levels of peer rejection.[68] Research that considers isolation with regard to the Internet either focuses on how the Internet makes individuals more isolated from society by cutting off their contact from live human beings[69][70][71] or how the Internet decreases social isolation of people by allowing them to expand their social networks and giving them more means to stay in touch with friends and family.[72][73] Since the development of the Internet, and in particular the World Wide Web, a wide variety of groups have come into existence, including Web and Internet Relay Chat (IRC), newsgroups, multiuser dimensions (MUDs), and, more recently, commercial virtual communities.[74] The theories and hypotheses about how Internet-based groups impact individuals are numerous and wide-ranging. Some researchers view these fast growing virtual chat cliques, online games, or computer-based marketplaces as a new opportunity, particularly for stigmatized people, to take a more active part in social life.[75][76][77]
Traditionally, social isolation has been presented as a one-dimensional construct organized around the notion of a person's position outside the peer group and refers to isolation from the group as a result of being excluded from the group by peers.[78] From children to adults, literature shows that people understand the concept of isolation and fear the repercussions of being isolated from groups of which they are a member. Fearing isolation, people did not feel free to speak up if they feel they hold dissenting views, which means people restrict themselves to having conversation with like-minded individuals, or have no conversation whatsoever.[79] Witschge further explained, "Whether it is fear of harming others, or fear to get harmed oneself, there are factors that inhibit people from speaking freely, and which thus results in a non-ideal type of discussion, as it hinders diversity and equality of participants and viewpoints to arise fully."[80]
The medium of the Internet has the power to free people from the fear of social isolation, and in doing so, shuts down the spiral of silence. One article demonstrates that social media can weaken the fear of isolation. The research shows that the vocal minority who hold racist viewpoints are willing to express unpopular views on Facebook.[27] The Internet allows people to find a place where they can find groups of people with like mindsets and similar points of view. Van Alstyne and Brynjolfsson stated that "Internet users can seek out interactions with like-minded individuals who have similar values, and thus become less likely to trust important decisions to people whose values differ from their own."[81] The features of the Internet could not only bring about more people to deliberate by freeing people of psychological barriers, but also bring new possibilities in that it "makes manageable large-scale, many-to-many discussion and deliberation."[82] Unlike traditional media that limit participation, the Internet brings the characteristics of empowerment, enormous scales of available information, specific audiences can be targeted effectively and people can be brought together through the medium.[83]
Online versus offline[edit]
The Internet is a place where many reference and social groups are available with similar views. It has become a place where it appears that people have less of a fear of isolation. One research article examined individuals' willingness to speak their opinion online and offline. Through survey results from 305 participants, a comparison and contrast of online and offline spiral of silence behaviors was determined.[84] Liu and Fahmy stated that "it is easy to quit from an online discussion without the pressure of complying with the majority group."[85] This is not to say that a spiral of silence does not occur in an online environment. People are still less likely to speak out, even in an online setting, when there is a dominant opinion that differs from their own.[85] But people in the online environment will speak up if someone has a reference group that speaks up for them.[85]
Online, the presence of one person who encourages a minority point of view can put an end to a spiral of silence. Studies of the spiral of silence in online behavior have not acknowledged that a person may be more likely to speak out against dominant views offline as well.[85] The person might have characteristics that make them comfortable speaking out against dominant views offline, which make them just as comfortable speaking out in an online setting.
Although research suggests that people will disclose their opinions more often in an online setting, silencing of views can still occur. One study indicates that people on Facebook are less willing to discuss the Snowden and NSA stories than an offline situation such as a family dinner or public meeting.[86] Another research article examined the influence of different opinion climates in online forums (opinion congruence with the majority of forum participants vs. website source) and found personal opinion congruence was more influential than the online site in which the forum is situated in.[87] Nekmat and Gonzenbach said it might be worth researching whether the factors in these studies or other factors cause people to be more comfortable when it comes to speaking their mind while online.[87]
Heterogeneity and anonymity[edit]
The nature of the Internet facilitates not only the participation of more people, but also a more heterogeneous group of people. Page stated, "The onward rush of electronic communications technology will presumably increase the diversity of available ideas and the speed and ease with which they fly about and compete with each other."[88] The reason people engage in deliberations is because of their differences, and the Internet allows differences to be easily found. The Internet seems the perfect place to find different views of a very diverse group of people who are at the same time open to such difference and disagreement needed for deliberation. Noelle-Neumann's initial idea of cowering and muted citizens is difficult to reconcile with empirical studies documenting uninhibited discussion in computer-mediated contexts such as chat rooms and newsgroups.[89][90][91][92]
The Internet provides an anonymous setting, and it can be argued that in an anonymous setting, fears of isolation and humiliation would be reduced. Wallace recognized that when people believe their actions cannot be attributed to them personally, they tend to become less inhibited by social conventions and restraints. This can be very positive, particularly when people are offered the opportunity to discuss difficult personal issues under conditions in which they feel safer.[93]
The groups' ability to taunt an individual is lessened on the Internet, thus reducing the tendency to conform. Wallace goes on to summarize a number of empirical studies that do find that dissenters feel more liberated to express their views online than offline, which might result from the fact that the person in the minority would not have to endure taunts or ridicule from people that are making up the majority, or be made to feel uncomfortable for having a different opinion.[94] Stromer-Galley considered that "an absence of non-verbal cues, which leads to a lowered sense of social presence, and a heightened sense of anonymity" frees people from the psychological barriers that keep them from engaging in a face-to-face deliberation.[95]
The crux of the spiral of silence is that people believe consciously or subconsciously that the expression of unpopular opinions will lead to negative repercussions. These beliefs may not exist on the Internet for several reasons. First, embarrassment and humiliation depends on the physical presence of others. In computer-mediated communication, physical isolation often already exists and poses no further threat.[63] Second, a great deal of normative influence is communicated through nonverbal cues, such as eye contact and gestures,[96] but computer-mediated communication typically precludes many of these cues. Third, Kiesler, Siegel, and McQuire observe that nonverbal social context cues convey formality and status inequality in face-to-face communication.[97] When these cues are removed, the importance of social status as a source of influence recedes. Group hierarchies that develop in face-to-face interaction emerge less clearly in a mediated environment.[98] The form and consequences of conformity influence should undergo significant changes given the interposition of a medium that reduces the social presence of participants.[63] Social presence is defined as the degree of salience of the other person in the interaction[99] or the degree to which the medium conveys some of the person's presence.[100]
Equality[edit]
An important issue in obtaining heterogeneity in conversation is equal access for all the participants and equal opportunities to influence in the discussion. When people believe they are ignorant about a topic, incapable to participate in a discussion or not equal to their peers, they tend to not even become involved in a deliberation. When people do decide to participate, their participation might be overruled by dominant others, or their contribution might be valued less or more, depending on their status.[63] Dahlberg praises the Internet for its possibility to liberate people from the social hierarchies and power relations that exist offline: "The 'blindness' of cyberspace to bodily identity... [is supposed to allow] people to interact as if they were equals. Arguments are said to be assessed by the value of the claims themselves and not the social position of the poster".[101]
Gastil sees this feature as one of the strongest points of the Internet: "if computer-mediated interaction can consistently reduce the independent influence of status, it will have a powerful advantage over face-to-face deliberation".[102] While status cues are difficult to detect, perceptions about the status converge, and this lessens stereotyping and prejudice.[94]
It may be that people do feel more equal in online forums than they feel offline. Racism, ageism, and other kinds of discrimination against out groups "seems to be diminishing because the cues to out-group status are not as obvious".[103] Next to this, the Internet has rapidly and dramatically increased the capacities to develop, share and organize information,[104] realizing more equality of access to information.[105]
Methodological research approaches[edit]
The relationship between the perception of public opinion and willingness to speak-up is mainly measured through surveys.[106] Surveys respondents are often asked whether they would reveal their opinions given a hypothetical situation, right after their opinions about the public opinion and their opinion is received. Whether asking hypothetical questions can reflect real life cases was questioned by some communication scholars, leading to a criticism of this methodology as not being able to capture what the respondent would do in a real-life situation.[107] A research study addressed this criticism by comparatively testing a spiral model both in a hypothetical survey and in a focus group.[107] The findings are in line with the critic of hypothetical survey questions, demonstrating a significant increase in the spiral of silence in focus groups.[107]
Among different approaches to survey methodology, cross-sectional study design is the leading method employed to analyze and test the theory.[106] Cross-sectional design involves the analysis of the relationship between public opinion and willingness to speak at one point in time.[106]
While many of the researchers employ cross-sectional design, some scholars employed panel data.[108] Under this methodology, three specific approaches have been used. Noelle-Neumann herself tested the theory from the aggregate level. Using this approach, the change process is "observed by comparing the absolute share of people perceiving a majority climate with people willing to express their views over time."[109] The second approach that has been used in spiral of silence research is conducting separate regressions for each panel survey wave. The drawback for this approach is that the individual change of climate and opinions perception is ignored.[109] The last approach a few scholars used in conducting spiral of silence researches is to use changed scores as dependent variables. However, as intuitive as this approach may be, it "leads to well-documented difficulties with respect to statistical properties, such as regression to the mean or the negative correlation of the change score with the time one state".[109]