Spiral of silence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

The spiral of silence is a political science and mass communication theory propounded by the German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann. The theory asserts that a person is less likely to voice an opinion on a topic if one feels that one is in the minority for fear of reprisal or isolation from the majority.[1]

Contents

[edit] Basic framework

The spiral of silence begins with fear of reprisal or isolation, and escalates from there. Individuals use what is described as "an innate ability" or quasi-statistical sense to gauge public opinion.[2] Mass media plays a large part in determining what the dominant opinion is, since our direct observation is limited to a small percentage of the population. Mass media has an enormous impact on how public opinion is portrayed, and can dramatically impact an individual's perception about where public opinion lies, whether or not that portrayal is factual.[3] Noelle-Neumann describes the spiral of silence as a dynamic process, in which predictions about public opinion become fact as mass media's coverage of the majority opinion becomes the status quo, and the minority becomes less likely to speak out.[4] The theory, however, only applies to moral or opinion issues, not issues that can be proven right or wrong using facts.

[edit] Uses and limitations

It is as much a measure of protection as it is one of oppression. Since it only applies to moral issues, which tend to evoke passionate responses in even the most reserved individuals, it can be used to contain social unrest over highly controversial topics. Though it can aid in keeping civil order, attempts to employ it knowingly are essentially methods of manipulation and coercion.

[edit] Overcoming the silence

The theory explains a vocal minority by stating that people who are highly educated, or who have greater affluence, and the few other cavalier individuals who do not fear isolation, are likely to speak out regardless of public opinion.[5] 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.

[edit] Current research

The spiral of silence tends to be the outcome of something controversial and political in nature. For that reason most current research focuses on hot-button social issues such as smoking, and the aftermath of September 11, 2001.[6] It focuses mainly on current events, and can indicate shifts in societal norms and value structures. The theory seems valid when examining westernized cultures, but studies have failed to take into account cross-cultural differences that may affect one's willingness to speak out.[7] Research has also started looking more into individual differences—that some people more than others are inclined to use cues about the opinion climate when deciding whether to speak out.[8]

[edit] Questions regarding the spiral of silence on the Internet

[edit] Isolating the Factors that Remove Isolation

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.[9] Other researchers have defined isolation as low levels of peer acceptance or high levels of peer rejection.[10] Research that considers isolation with regards to the Internet either focuses on either how the Internet makes individuals more isolated from society by cutting off their contact from live human beings[11] 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.[12] 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.[13] 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.[14]

Traditionally, social isolation has been represented 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.[15] 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 they are a part. Fearing isolation, people would not feel free to speak up if they feel they hold dissenting views, which means people restrict themselves to having conversation with like-minded, or have no conversation whatsoever.[16] Witschge further explains, "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".[17]

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. 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”.[18] The features of the Internet could not only bring about more people to deliberate by freeing people of the psychological barriers, but also bring new possibilities in that it “makes manageable large-scale, many-to-many discussion and deliberation”.[19] 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.[20]

[edit] Heterogeneity and Anonymity

The nature of the Internet facilitates not only the participation of more people, but also of 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”.[21] 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. As stated previously, people avoid deliberation because they fear the consequences. 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 chatrooms and newsgroups.[22]

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 (1999) recognized thathen 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.Wallace 1999:124-125.</ref>

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.[23] Stromer-Galley considered that the following characteristics of the online conversation free people from the psychological barriers that keep them from engaging in a face-to-face deliberation; “an absence of non-verbal cues, which leads to a lowered sense of social presence, and a heightened sense of anonymity”.[24] Computer-mediated communication decreases social cues, and an absence of non-verbal communication should limit the capacity for ridicule and humiliation when people are physically isolated from each other. In an online discussion group, one possible result is that extreme opinions become muted and thus appear more moderate than they really are. Categorization effects are less likely if other persons are perceived as abstract entities.

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.[25] Second, a great deal of normative influence is communicated through nonverbal cues, such as eye contact and gestures,[26] but computer-mediated communication typically precludes many of these cues. Third, Keisler, Siegel, and McQuire observe that nonverbal social context cues convey formality and status inequality in face-to-face communication.[27] When these cues are removed, the importance of social status as source of influence recedes. Group hierarchies that develop in face-to-face interaction emerge less clearly in a mediated environment.[28] The form and consequences of conformity influence should undergo significant changes given the interposition of a medium that reduces the social presence of participants.[29] Social presence is defined as the degree of salience of the other person in the interaction,[30] or the degree to which the medium conveys some of the person’s presence[31].

[edit] Equality

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,[32] 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".[33]

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”.[34] Another characteristic that seems to become less important is status. In a discussion forum, your words would carry more weight than your socioeconomic position. While status cues are difficult to detect, perceptions about the status converge, and this lessens stereotyping and prejudice.[35]

It may be that people do feel more equal in online forums than they feel offline. For one thing is certain: 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”.[36] Next to this, the Internet has rapidly and dramatically increased the capacities to develop, share and organize information,[37] realizing more equality of access to information.[38] This might in time lead to more equally informed citizens with more equal capacities to deliberate.

The idea that social isolations cannot exist on the internet must not be confused with the effects that the Internet has on isolating individuals within society. One idea focuses on how the Internet has a positive or negative effect on people’s lives though their usage of the Internet. The idea behind this examination was to focus on the interactions that take place on the Internet. Recent literature has brought up the ideas that the Internet reduces social cues, facilitates a lowered sense of social presence and allows users to remain relatively anonymous. All of these ideas lend themselves to a possible hypothesis that they all eliminate the potential for social isolation on the Internet. Further research is needed to test that hypothesis, but if proven, it will show that the spiral of silence cannot exist within the medium of the Internet.

[edit] See also

[edit] References

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Anderson, 1996: 214; Miller, 2005: 277.
  2. ^ Miller 2005:278.
  3. ^ Scheufele and Moy 1999.
  4. ^ Miller 2005:278.
  5. ^ Miller 2005:279.
  6. ^ Shanahan et al. 2004.
  7. ^ Scheufele and Moy 1999.
  8. ^ Hayes, Glynn, and Shanahan, 2005a, 2005b.
  9. ^ O’Connor, 1969, 1972.
  10. ^ Gottman, Gonso, & Rasmussen 1975.
  11. ^ Kraut et al. 1998; Moody, 2001; Sleek, 1998.
  12. ^ Morris & Ogan, 2002; Bradley & Poppen, 2003.
  13. ^ Sassenberg, 2002.
  14. ^ Rheingold, 1993; Cummings, Sproull, & Kiesler, 2002; McKenna & Bargh, 1998.
  15. ^ Bowker, Bukowski, Zargarpour & Hoza, 1998.
  16. ^ Witschge, 2002.
  17. ^ Witschge, 2002:8.
  18. ^ Van Alstyne and Brynjolfsson 1996:24.
  19. ^ Coleman & Gøtze, 2001:17.
  20. ^ O'Hara, 2002.
  21. ^ Page 1996:124.
  22. ^ Wanta & Dimitrova, 2000; O’Sullivan, 1995; Sproull & Kiesler, 1992; Hlitz, Johnson & Turoff, 1986.
  23. ^ Wallace, 1999.
  24. ^ Stromer-Galley 2002:35.
  25. ^ McDevitt, Kiousis, & Wahl-Jorgensen, 2003.
  26. ^ Burgoon, Buller, & Woodall, 1989
  27. ^ Keisler, Siegel, and McQuire 1984.
  28. ^ Williams, 1977.
  29. ^ McDevitt, Kiousis, & Wahl-Jorgensen, 2003.
  30. ^ Short, Williams, & Christie, 1976.
  31. ^ Rice & Williams, 1984.
  32. ^ McDevitt, Kiousis & Wahl-Jorgensen, 2003.
  33. ^ Dahlberg 2001:14.
  34. ^ Gastil 2000:359.
  35. ^ Wallace, 1999.
  36. ^ Wallace, 1999, p. 99.
  37. ^ Warren, 2001.
  38. ^ Gimmler, 2001.

[edit] Bibliography

  • Alstyne, M. V., & Brynjolfsson, E. (1996). Electronic communities: Global village or cyberbalkans? Paper presented at the International Conference on Information Systems, Cleveland, OH.
  • Anderson, J.A. (1996). Communication theory: epistemological foundations. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
  • Bradley, N., & Poppen, W. (2003). Assistive technology, computers and Internet may decrease sense of isolation for homebound elderly and disabled persons. Technology and Disability, 14(1).
  • Bowker, A., Bukowski, W., Zargarpour, S., & Hoza, B. (1998). A structural and functional analysis of a two-dimensional model of social isolation. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44, 447-463.
  • Burgoon, J. K., Buller, D. B., & Woodall, W. G. (1989). Nonverbal communication: The unspoken dialogue. New York: Harper & Row.
  • Coleman, S., & Gøtze, J. (2001). Bowling together: Online public engagement in policy deliberation. Retrieved November, 2007, from http://bowlingtogether.net/about.html
  • Cummings, J., Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. B. (2002). Beyond hearing: Where real-world and online support meet. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research and Practice, 6(1), 78-88.
  • Dahlberg, L. (2001). The Internet and democratic discourse. Information, Communication & Society, 4(4), 615-633.
  • Gastil, J. (2000). Is face-to-face citizen deliberation a luxury or a necessity? Political Communication, 14(4), 357-361.
  • Gimmler, A. (2001). Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the Internet. Philosophy and Social Criticism, 27(4), 357-361.
  • Gonzenbach, W.J.; King, C.; Jablonski, P. (1999). Homosexuals and the military: an analysis of the spiral of silence. Howard Journal of Communication, 4, 281-296.
  • Gonzenbach, W.J.; Stevenson, R.L. (1994). Children with AIDS attending public school: an analysis of the spiral of silence. Political Communication, 1, 3-18.
  • Gottman, J., Gonso, J., & Rasmussen, B. (1975). Social interaction, social competence, and friendship in children. Child Development, 46(3), 709-718.
  • Hayes, A. F., Glynn, C. J., & Shanahan, J. (2005a). Willingness to self-censor: A construct and measurement tool for public opinion research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 298-323.
  • Hayes, A. F., Glynn, C. J., & Shanahan, J. (2005b). Validating the willingness to self-censor scale: Individual differences in the effect of the climate of opinion on opinion expression, 17, 443-455.
  • Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K., & Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in group decision making: Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences. Human Communication Research, 13, 225-252.
  • Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McQuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. American Psychologist, 39, 1123-1134.
  • Kraut, R. E., Patterson, M., Lundmark, V., Kiesler, S., Mukhopadhyay, T., & Scherlis, W. (1998). Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological well-being? American Psychologies, 53(9), 1017-1032.
  • McDevitt, M., Kiousis, S., & Wahl-Jorgensen, K. (2003). Spiral of moderation: Opinion expression in computer-mediated discussion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15(4), 454-470.
  • McKenna, K. Y. A., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Coming out in the age of the Internet: Identity "demarginalization" through virtual group participation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 681-694.
  • Moody, E. J. (2001). Internet use and its relationship to loneliness. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4(3), 393-401.
  • Morris, M., & Ogan, C. (2002). The internet as mass medium. In D. McQauil (Ed.), McQuail's Reader in Mass Communication Theory. London: Sage
  • Moy, P.; Domke, D.; Stamm, K. (2001). The spiral of silence and public opinion on affirmative action. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 1, 7-25.
  • Noelle-Neumann, E. (1993). The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion - Our Social Skin. University of Chicago Press.
  • Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence: a theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 24, 43-51
  • O'Connor, R. D. (1969). Modification of social withdrawal through symbolic modeling. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2, 15-22.
  • O'Connor, R. D. (1972). Relative efficacy of modeling, shaping, and the combined procedures for modification of social withdrawal. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 79, 327-334.
  • O'Hara, K. (2002). The Internet: A tool for democratic pluralism? Science as Culture, 11(2), 287-298.
  • O'Sullivan, P. B. (1995). Computer networks and political participation: Santa Monica's teledemocracy project. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 23, 93-107.
  • Page, B. I. (1996). Who deliberates? Mass Media in Modern Democracy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  • Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community. Homesteading on the electronic frontier: Reading
  • Rice, R. E., & Williams, F. (1984). Theories old and new: The study of new media. In R. E. Rice (Ed.), The new media: Communication, research, and technology (pp. 55-80). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  • Sassenberg, K. (2002). Common bond and common identity groups on the Internet: Attachment and normative behaviors in on-topic and off-topic chats. Group Dynamics, 6(1), 27-37.
  • Scheufele, D. A., & Moy, P. (2000). Twenty-five years of the spiral of silence: A conceptual review and empirical outlook. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 12(1), 3-28.
  • Schmierback, M.; Boyle, M.P.; McLeod, D.M. (2005). Civic attachment in the aftermath of September 11. Mass Communication and Society, 4, 323-346.
  • Shanahan, J.; Scheufele, D.A.; Fang Yang; Hizi, S. (2004). Cultivation and spiral of silence effects:the case of smoking. Mass Communication and Society, 4, 413-428.
  • Short, J., Williams, E., & Christie, B. (1976). The social psychology of telecommunications. New York: John Wiley.
  • Sleek, S. (1998). Isolation increases with Internet use. American Psychological Association Monitor, 29(1), 1.
  • Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1992). Connections: New ways of working in the networked organization. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Stromer-Galley, J. (2002). New voices in the political sphere: A comparative analysis of interpersonal and online political talk. Javnost/The Public, 9(2), 23-42.
  • Wallace, P. (1999). The psychology of the Internet. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
  • Wanta, W., & Dimitrova, D. (2000). Chatrooms and the spiral of silence: An examination of online discussions during the final 1996 U.S. presidential debate. Paper presented at the International Communication Association, Acapulco, Mexico.
  • Warren, M. E. (2001). What should we expect from more democracy? Radically democratic responses to politics. Political Theory, 24(2), 241-270.
  • Williams, E. (1977). Experimental comparison of face-to-face and mediated communication: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 963-976.
  • Witschge, T. (2002). Online Deliberation: Possibilities of the Internet for deliberative democracy. Paper presented at the Euricom Colloquium Electronic Networks & Democratic Engagement, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_of_silence"
Personal tools