Spiral of silence
The spiral of silence theory is a political science and
mass communication theory proposed by the German
political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, which stip-
ulates that individuals have a fear of isolation, which re-
sults from the idea that a social group or the society in
general might isolate, neglect, or exclude members due
to the members’ opinions. This fear of isolation conse-
quently leads to remaining silent instead of voicing opin-
ions. Media is an important factor that relates to both the
dominant idea and people’s perception of the dominant
idea. The assessment of one’s social environment may
not always correlate with reality.[1]
1 Background
According to Shelly Neill, “Introduced in 1974, the Spiral
of Silence Theory [...] explores hypotheses to determine
why some groups remain silent while others are more vo-
cal in forums of public disclosure.”[2] The spiral of si-
lence theory suggests that “people who have believed that
they hold a minority viewpoint on a public issue will re-
main in the background where their communication will
be restrained; those who believe that they hold a majority
viewpoint will be more encouraged to speak.”[3]
The theory explains the formation of social norms at both
the micro and macro level. “As a micro-theory, the spiral
of silence examines opinion expression, controlling for
people’s predispositions – such as fear of isolation, and
also demographic variables that have been shown to in-
fluence people’s willingness to publicly express opinions
on issues, such as agricultural biotechnology.”[1] The spi-
ral of silence occurs on a macro level if more and more
members of the perceived minority fall silent. This is
when public perceptions of the opinion climate begin to
shift.[1] “In other words, a person’s individual reluctance
to express his or her opinion, simply based on percep-
tions of what everyone else thinks, has important impli-
cations at the social level.”[1] As one opinion gains the in-
terest of the majority, the minority faces threat and fear
of isolation from society. As the opinion gains momen-
tum by the majority, the minority continues to be threat-
ened and falls deeper into their silence. It continues until
the minority no longer speaks out against it, and the opin-
ion of the perceived majority ultimately becomes a social
norm.[4]
1
1.1 Spiral model
The spiral model is an analogy used to visually describe
the theory. The end of the spiral refers to the number
of people that are not publicly expressing their opinions,
due to the fear of isolation. An individual is more likely
to go down the spiral if his or her opinion does not con-
form with the perceived majority opinion.[4] The follow-
ing steps summarize how the process works:
1. We can distinguish between fields where the opin-
ions and attitudes involved are static, and fields
where those opinions and attitudes are subject to
changes... Where opinions are relatively definite
and static – for example, “customs” – one has to ex-
press or act according to this opinion in public or
run the risk of becoming isolated. In contrast, where
opinions are in flux, or disputed, the individual will
try to find out which opinion he can express without
becoming isolated.
2. Individuals who, when observing their environ-
ments, notice that their own personal opinion is
spreading and is taken over by others, will voice
this opinion self-confidently in public. On the other
hand, individuals who notice that their own opinions
are losing ground will be inclined to adopt a more
reserved attitude when expressing their opinions in
public.
3. It follows from this that, as the representatives of the
first opinion talk quite a lot while the representatives
of the second opinion remain silent, there is a def-
inite influence on the environment: an opinion that
is being reinforced in this way appears stronger than
it really is, while an opinion suppressed as described
will seem to be weaker than it is in reality.
4. The result is a spiral process which prompts other
individuals to perceive the changes in opinion and
follow suit, until one opinion has become established
as the prevailing attitude while the other opinion will
be pushed back and rejected by everybody with the
exception of the hard core that nevertheless sticks to
that opinion.[5]
This is a process of formation, change and reinforcement
of public opinion. The tendency of the one to speak up
and the other to be silent starts off a spiraling process
which increasingly establishes one opinion as the domi-
nant one. Over time, these changing perceptions establish
2 2 EPISTEMOLOGY

one opinion as predominant one and they change from the
liquid state to a solid norm.[5]
Further, Noelle-Neumann describes the spiral of silence
as a dynamic process, in which predictions about pub-
lic opinion become fact as mass media’s coverage of the
majority opinion becomes the status quo, and the minor-
ity becomes less likely to speak out.[6]
2 Epistemology
quickly that he is dealing with a Proteus, a be-
ing that appears simultaneously in a thousand
guises, both visible and as a phantom, impotent
and surprisingly efficacious, which presents it-
self in innumerable transformations and is for-
ever slipping through our fingers just as we be-
lieve we have a firm grip on it... That which
floats and flows cannot be understood by being
locked up in a formula... After all, when asked,
everyone knows exactly what public opinion
means.[4]

2.1 Public

Scholars have long argued over the concept of public

within “public opinion”. The use of "public" and “the
public” betrays multiple competing meanings.[4] There
are three meanings of public. One meaning is the legal It was said to be a “fiction that belonged in a museum
sense of public that focuses on openness. For example, of the history of ideas; it could only be of historical
a public place or path. A second meaning for the term interest.”[4]
emphasizes public rights. Lastly, within the phrase pub- In contradiction to that quote, the term public opinion
lic opinion, public is said to have a related but different seemed to not cease. During the early 1970s, Elisabeth
definition. Public, in this sense, could be characterized as Noelle-Neumann was creating the theory of the spiral of
social psychology. Scholars have marveled in amazement silence. She was making an effort to clarify the 1965
at the power public opinion has in making regulations, finding of which voting intentions would not change but
norms, and moral rules triumph over the individual self yet expectations that one side would win continued to in-
without ever troubling legislators, governments or courts crease. Noelle-Nuemann began to question if she was
for assistance.[4] indeed grabbing 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
2.2 Opinion through which a new, youthful public opinion develops
or whereby the transformed meaning of an old opinion
“Common Opinion" is what the Scottish social philoso- spreads.”[4]
pher David Hume called it in his 1739 published work
The American sociologist Edward Ross described public
A Treatise of Human Nature. Agreement and a sense of
opinion in 1898 using the word “cheap”. “The equation
the common is what lay behind the English and French
[4] of 'public opinion' with 'ruling opinion' runs like a com-
“opinion.” In researching the term opinion, meinung in
mon thread through its many definitions. This speaks to
German, researchers were led back to Plato's Republic.
the fact that something clinging to public opinion sets up
In Plato’s Republic, a quote from Socrates conclude that
conditions that move individuals to act, even against their
opinion takes the middle position. Immanuel Kant con-
own will.”[8]
sidered opinion to be an “insufficient judgement, subjec-
tively as well as objectively.”[7] How valuable opinion may Many possible meanings and definitions of the term have
be was left out; however, the fact that it is suggested to be been explored. Scholars have considered the content of
unified agreement of a population, or segment of the pop- public opinion, assumed to consist of public affairs is-
ulation, was still considered.[4] sues. 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 dom-
2.3 Public opinion inant enough to intimidate but whose views may or may
not support actions that are in the common interest.”[9]
The term public opinion first emerged in France during They have also considered whose opinion establishes pub-
the eighteenth century. The definition of public opinion lic opinion, assumed to be persons of a community who
has been debated over time. There has not been much are ready to express themselves responsibly about ques-
progress in locking in one classification of the phrase tions of public relevance. Scholars have also looked into
public opinion. Hermann Oncken, a German historian, the forms of public opinion, said to be those that are
stated openly expressed and accessible; opinions that are made
public, especially in the mass media. Controversy sur-
Whoever desires to grasp and define the rounding this term spiraled around both words combining
concept of public opinion will recognize to form the phrase.[4]
 3

2.4 Media and public opinion 3 Assumptions

3.1 Fear of isolation

Mass media’s effects on both public opinion and the per-
The fear of isolation is the centrifugal force that acceler-
ception of the public opinion are central to the Spiral of
ates the spiral of silence.[17] Essentially, people fear be-
Silence Theory. One of the earliest works that called at-
coming social isolates and thus take measures to avoid
tention to the relationship between media and the forma-
such a consequence, as demonstrated by psychologist
tion of public opinion was Walter Lippmann's book “Pub-
Solomon Asch in the Asch conformity experiments.[18]
lic Opinion,” published in 1923.[10] Ideas of Lippmann
People feel more comfortable by agreeing with opinions
regarding the effects of media influenced the emergence
that they know are wrong instead of telling others their
of the Spiral of Silence Theory. As she is building the
ideas.[1]
spiral theory, Noelle-Neumann states “the reader can only
complete and explain the world by making use of a con-
sciousness which in large measure has been created by the 3.2 Assessing the climate
mass media.”[8]
Agenda-setting theory is another work that Noelle- This assumption proposes that in order to avoid becoming
Neumann builds on as she is characterizing media’s ef- isolated and in order not to lose popularity and esteem,
fect on the public opinion. Agenda-setting theory de- people constantly observe their environment very closely.
scribes the relationship between media and public opin- They try to find out which opinions and modes of be-
ion by asserting that the public importance of an issue haviour are prevalent, and which opinions and modes of
depends on its salience in the media.[11] Along with set- behaviour are becoming more popular. They behave and
ting the agenda, the media further determines the salient express themselves accordingly in public. Then, they try
issues through a constant battle with other events attempt- to determine whether they are in the majority: whether
ing to gain place in the agenda.[8] The media battles with the public opinion tends to agree with them. If they feel
these news alternatives by creating “pseudo-crises” and they are in the minority, they tend to remain silent.[19]
“pseudo-novelties.”[8]
Media’s characteristics as a communication tool further 3.2.1 Quasi-statistical sense
effect people’s perception of their own ideas in regard to
the public opinion.[8] According to Neolle-Neumann, the Individuals use what is described as “an innate ability”
media is a “one-sided, indirect, public form of communi- or quasi-statistical sense to gauge public opinion.[20] Peo-
cation, contrasting threefold with the most natural form ple assume they can sense and figure out what others are
of human communication, the conversation.”[8] These thinking.[1]
characteristics of the media in particular further over-
whelm one’s individual ideas. The Mass media play a large part in deter-
While some media communication theories assume mining what the dominant opinion is, since our
a passive audience, such as the Hypodermic Needle direct observation is limited to a small percent-
model,[12] the spiral model assumes an active audience age of the population. The mass media have
“who consumes media products in the context of their an enormous impact on how public opinion is
personal and social goals.”[12] Knowledge “gained from portrayed, and can dramatically impact an indi-
the mass media may offer ammunition for people to ex- vidual’s perception about where public opinion
press their opinions and offer a rationale for their own lies, whether or not that portrayal is factual.[21]
[13]
stance.” 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 of- 3.2.2 Pluralistic ignorance
fer a rationale for their own opinion than were those who
have a high fear of isolation.”[13] Pluralistic ignorance may occur in some cases, leading to
the minority opinion to be accepted as a norm. Group
Neolle-Neuman regards media central to the formulation members may be privately rejecting a norm, but may
of the Spiral of Silence Theory, whereas some scholars falsely assume that other group members accept it. This
argue whether the dominant idea in one’s social envi- phenomenon may cause a group to hold on to a norm.[22]
ronment overwhelms the dominant idea that media pro-
poses as the perceived social norm.[14][15] Some empir-
ical research align with this perspective; suggesting that 3.3 Evaluation of public opinion matters
the “micro-climate” of an individual overwhelms the ef-
fects of the media.[15] Other articles further suggest that Our evaluation of a public opinion has an effect on our
talking with others is the primary way of understanding decision to speak up. Where opinions are relatively defi-
the opinion climate.[16] nite and static – customs, for example – one has to express
4 5 APPLICATION OF THE THEORY

or act according to this opinion in public or run the risk collectivist cultures are more likely to exhibit conformity
of becoming isolated. In contrast, where opinions are in than the individualistic cultures.[30]
flux, or disputed, the individual will try to find out which
opinion he can express without becoming isolated. Indi-
viduals tend to publicly express their opinions and atti- 5.1.1 The United States and Taiwan
tudes when they perceive their view to be dominant or on
the rise. Conversely, when individuals perceive that their A Cross Cultural Test of the Spiral of Silence by Huip-
opinion is less popular or losing popularity, they are less ing Huang analyzes the results of a telephone survey done
likely to voice it in public. What one individual decides in Taiwan and the United States. The hypotheses tested
to do affects all of society around them.[1] were the beliefs that the United States is an “individualis-
tic” society, while Taiwan is a "collectivist" society. This
suggested that the spiral of silence is less likely to be acti-
vated in the United States, because individuals are more
4 Vocal minority and hardcore likely to put emphasis on their personal goals. They put
the “I” identity over the “we” identity, and strive for per-
The theory explains a vocal minority (the complement of sonal success. Therefore, it was hypothesized that they
the silent majority) by stating that people who are highly would be more likely to speak out, regardless of if they
educated, or who have greater affluence, and the few other are in the minority. On the other hand, it was predicted
cavalier individuals who do not fear isolation, are likely to that individuals in Taiwan put more emphasis on the col-
speak out regardless of public opinion.[23] It further states lective goal, so they would conform to the majority influ-
that this minority is a necessary factor of change while ence in hopes of avoiding tension and conflict. The study
the compliant majority is a necessary factor of stability, also tested the effect of motives, including self-efficacy
with both being a product of evolution. There is a vocal and self-assurance.
minority, which remains at the top of the spiral in defiance
of threats of isolation. Telephone surveys were conducted; the citizens of the
United States were questioned in regards to American in-
This theory calls these vocal minorities the hardcore non- volvement in Somalia, and the citizens of Taiwan about
conformist or the avant-garde. Hardcore nonconformists the possibility of a direct presidential election. Both is-
are “people who have already been rejected for their be- sues focused on politics and human rights, and were there-
liefs and have nothing to lose by speaking out.”[17] The fore comparable. Respondents were asked to choose “fa-
hardcore has the ability to reconfigure majority opinion. vor,” “neutral” or “oppose” in regards to the categories of
While the avant-garde are “the intellectuals, artists, and themselves, family and friends, the media, society, and
reformers in the isolated minority who speak out because society in the future about the given issue. Measure-
they are convinced they are ahead of the times.”[17] ments were also taken regarding the individualism and
collectivism constructs, and the “motives of not express-
ing opinion” based on a 1–10 and 1–5 scale respectively,
5 Application of the theory in approval of given statements.
Results showed support for the original hypothesis. Over-
The spiral of silence has brought insight regarding di- all, Americans were more likely to speak out than Tai-
verse topics, ranging from speaking about popular cul- wanese. Being incongruous with the majority lessened
ture phenomena,[24] to smoking.[25] Considering that the the motivation of the Taiwanese to speak out (and they
spiral of silence is more likely to occur in controversial had a higher collectivist score), but had little effect on
issues and issues with a moral component,[8] many schol- the Americans. In Taiwan, future support and belief of
ars have applied the theory to controversial topics, such society played a large role in likeliness to voice an opin-
as abortion,[26] affirmative action,[27] and capital punish- ion, and support that the activation of the spiral of silence
ment.[28] is in effect. In the United States, it was hypothesized that
because they were more individualistic, they would be
more likely to speak out if in the minority, or incongruous
5.1 Cross cultural studies group. However, this was not true, but Huang suggests
that perhaps the issue chosen was not directly prevalent,
Existing literature prior to the spiral of silence theory sug- and therefore, they found it “unnecessary to voice their
gest a relationship between social conformity and culture, objections to the majority opinion.” Lack of self-efficacy
motivating communication scholars to conduct cross- led to lack of speaking out in both countries.[31]
cultural analysis of the theory. Scholars in the field of
psychology in particular previously addressed the cul-
tural variance involved in the conformity to the major- 5.1.2 Basque nationalism
ity opinion.[29] More recent studies confirm the link be-
tween conformity and culture: a meta-analysis regarding Basque Nationalism and the Spiral of Silence is an article
Asch conformity experiments, for example, suggest that by Spencer and Croucher that analyzes the public percep-
5.3 In computer-mediated communication
tion of ETA (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna, a militant separatist
group) in Spain and France. This study was conducted
in a similar way as above, with Basque individuals from
Spain and France being questioned about their support
of ETA. They were asked questions such as “How likely
would you be to enter into a conversation with a stranger
on a train about ETA?" Taken into consideration were the
cultural differences of the two different regions in which
ETA existed.
The results supported the theory of the spiral of silence.
While there was a highly unfavorable opinion of the
group, there was a lack of an outcry to stop it. Indi-
viduals claimed that they were more likely to voice their
opinions to non-Basques, suggesting that they have a “fear
of isolation” in regards to fellow Basques. Furthermore,
the Spanish individuals questioned were more likely to
be silent because of their greater proximity to the violent
acts.[32]
5.2 Perceptions in the classroom
One study, by Henson and Denker “investigates percep-
tions of silencing behaviors, political affiliation, and polit-
ical differences as correlates to perceptions of university
classroom climates and communication behaviors.”[33]
They looked at whether students’ view of the classroom
changes whether they perceive the instructor and other
classmates with a different political affiliation, with the
instructor and other classmates communicating using si-
lencing behaviors. The article stated that little has been
investigated into student-teacher interactions in the class-
room, and how the students are influenced.[33] The goal of
the article was to “determine how political ideas are ex-
pressed in the university classrooms, and thus, assess the
influence of classroom communication on the perceptions
of political tolerance.”[33]
The article claimed that university classrooms are an
adequate place to scrutinize the spiral of silence the-
ory because it is a place that has interpersonal, cultural,
media, and political communication. Henson and Denker
said, “Because classroom interactions and societal dis-
course are mutually influential, instructors and students
bring their own biases and cultural perspectives into the
5.5
classroom.”[33]
The study researched whether there was a correlation be-
tween students’ perception that they were being politi-
cally silenced and their perceived differences in student-
instructor political affiliation. The study also questioned
whether there was any connection between the perceived
climate and the similarity of the student and instructor
on their political affiliations.[33] The researchers used par-
ticipants from a Midwestern university’s communication
courses. The students answered a survey over their per-
ceptions of political silencing, classroom climate, and the
climate created by the instructor. The results of this re-
search found that there is a positive relationship of the
5
perceived similarities in political party and ideological
differences of the student and instructor to perceived
greater political silencing.[33]
5.3 In computer-mediated communication
While the studies regarding the spiral of silence theory
focused on face-to-face interaction before 2000, the the-
ory was later applied to a computer-mediated communi-
cation environment. The first study in this context ana-
lyzed communication behaviors in online chat rooms re-
garding the issue of abortion, and revealed that minority
opinion holders were more likely to speak out, whereas
their comments remained neutral.[34] Another study fo-
cused on the Korean bulletin board postings regarding the
national election, and found a relationship between online
postings and the presentation of candidates in the main-
stream media.[35] The third study focuses on the online
review system, suggesting that the fear of isolation tend
to reduce the willingness of members to voice neutral and
negative reviews.[36] The Spiral of Silence Theory is ex-
tended “into the context of non-anonymous multichannel
communication platforms” and “the need to consider the
role of communicative affordances in online opinion ex-
pression” is also addressed.[36]
5.4 In social media contexts
Current literature suggests that the spiral model can be
applied to the social media context. Gearhart and Zhang
conduct a study to examine whether or not the use of so-
cial media will increase people’s motivation of express
their opinions about political issues. The results suggest
that social media users “who have received a strong neg-
ative reaction to their politically related posts are likely
to censor themselves, exemplifying the spiral of silence
effect”.[37] Another research confirms the positive rela-
tionship 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.[38]
Social capital
The spiral of silence theory can be also applied to social
capital context. Recent studies see social capital as “a
variable that enables citizens to develop norms of trust
and reciprocity, which are necessary for successful en-
gagement in collective activities”.[39] One study exam-
ines three individual-level indicators of social capital--
civic engagement, trust and neighborliness, and the re-
lationship between these indicators and people’s willing-
ness to express their opinions and their perception of sup-
port for one’s opinions. The results suggest that civic en-
gagement has a direct effect on people’s willingness to
express their opinions and neighborliness and trust had
6 6 INTERNET

direct positive effects on people’s perception of support down the spiral of silence. The Internet allows people
for one’s opinions.[39] Also, the study shows that “only to find a place where they can find groups of people with
a direct (but not indirect) effect of civic engagement on like mindsets and similar points of view. Van Alstyne and
opinion expression further highlights a potential differ- Brynjolfsson stated that “Internet users can seek out in-
ence between bonding and bridging social capital”.[39] teractions with like-minded individuals who have similar
values, and thus become less likely to trust important de-
cisions to people whose values differ from their own.”[55]
The features of the Internet could not only bring about
6 Internet more people to deliberate by freeing people of psycho-
logical barriers, but also bring new possibilities in that
6.1 Isolating the factors that remove isola- it “makes manageable large-scale, many-to-many discus-
sion and deliberation.”[56] Unlike traditional media that
tion limit participation, the Internet brings the characteristics
of empowerment, enormous scales of available informa-
The concept of isolation has a variety of definitions, de- tion, specific audiences can be targeted effectively and
pendent upon the circumstances it is investigated in. In people can be brought together through the medium.[57]
one instance the problem of isolation has been defined
as social withdrawal, defined as low relative frequencies
of peer interaction.[40][41] Other researchers have defined
isolation as low levels of peer acceptance or high lev-
els of peer rejection.[42] Research that considers isolation
6.2 Online versus offline
with regard to the Internet either focuses on how the In-
ternet makes individuals more isolated from society by The Internet is a place where many reference and social
cutting off their contact from live human beings[43][44][45] groups are available with similar views. It has become
or how the Internet decreases social isolation of people a place where it appears that people have less of a fear
by allowing them to expand their social networks and of isolation. One research article examined individu-
giving them more means to stay in touch with friends als’ willingness to speak their opinion online and offline.
and family.[46][47] Since the development of the Internet, Through survey results, from 305 participants, a compar-
and in particular the World Wide Web, a wide variety ison and contrast of online and offline spiral of silence
[58]
of groups have come into existence, including Web and behaviors was determined. Liu and Fahmy stated that
Internet Relay Chat (IRC), newsgroups, multiuser dimen- “it is easy to quit from an online discussion without the
[59]
sions (MUDs), and, more recently, commercial virtual pressure of complying with the majority group.” This
communities.[48] The theories and hypotheses about how is not to say that a spiral of silence does not occur in an
Internet-based groups impact individuals are numerous online environment. People are still less likely to speak
and wide-ranging. Some researchers view these fast out, even in an online setting, when there is a dominant
[59]
growing virtual chat cliques, online games, or computer- opinion that differs from their own. But people in the
based marketplaces as a new opportunity, particularly for online environment will speak up if someone has a refer-
[59]
stigmatized people, to take a more active part in social ence group that speaks up for them. In an online sit-
life.[49][50][51] uation, just having one person be there to encourage a
minority point of view can put an end to a spiral of si-
Traditionally, social isolation has been represented as a lence. Another reason for why the spiral of silence the-
one-dimensional construct organized around the notion ory has less of an effect online could be that studies do not
of a person’s position outside the peer group and refers acknowledge whether the person is more likely to speak
to isolation from the group as a result of being excluded out against dominant views offline as well.[59] The per-
from the group by peers.[52] From children to adults, lit- son might have characteristics that make him comfortable
erature shows that people understand the concept of iso- speaking out against dominant views offline, which make
lation and fear the repercussions of being isolated from them just as comfortable speaking out in an online set-
groups of which they are a member. Fearing isolation, ting. Even though research suggests that there is a chance
people did not feel free to speak up if they feel they people will speak out with their opinions more often in an
hold dissenting views, which means people restrict them- online setting, silencing of views can still occur. Another
selves to having conversation with like-minded individu- research article examined the influence of different opin-
als, or have no conversation whatsoever.[53] Witschge fur- ion climates in online forums (opinion congruence with
ther explained, “Whether it is fear of harming others, or the majority of forum participants vs. website source)
fear to get harmed oneself, there are factors that inhibit and found personal opinion congruence was more influ-
people from speaking freely, and which thus results in a ential than the online site in which the forum is situated
non-ideal type of discussion, as it hinders diversity and in.[60] Gonzenbach and Nekmat said it might be worth re-
equality of participants and viewpoints to arise fully.”[54] searching whether the factors in these studies or other fac-
The medium of the Internet has the power to free people tors cause people to be more comfortable when it comes
from the fear of social isolation, and in doing so, shuts to speaking their mind while online.[60]
6.4 Equality 7

6.3 Heterogeneity and anonymity chies that develop in face-to-face interaction emerge less
clearly in a mediated environment.[72] The form and con-
The nature of the Internet facilitates not only the partic- sequences of conformity influence should undergo signif-
ipation of more people, but also a more heterogeneous icant changes given the interposition of a medium that re-
group of people. Page stated, “The onward rush of elec- duces the social presence of participants.[69] Social pres-
tronic communications technology will presumably in- ence is defined as the degree of salience of the other
crease the diversity of available ideas and the speed and person in the interaction[73] or the degree to which the
ease with which they fly about and compete with each medium conveys some of the person’s presence.[74]
other.”[61] The reason people engage in deliberations is
because of their differences, and the Internet allows dif-
6.4 Equality
ferences to be easily found. The Internet seems the per-
fect place to find different views of a very diverse group
An important issue in obtaining heterogeneity in conver-
of people who are at the same time open to such differ-
sation is equal access for all the participants and equal
ence and disagreement needed for deliberation. Noelle-
opportunities to influence in the discussion. When peo-
Neumann’s initial idea of cowering and muted citizens
ple believe they are ignorant about a topic, incapable to
is difficult to reconcile with empirical studies document-
participate in a discussion or not equal to their peers,
ing uninhibited discussion in computer-mediated con-
they tend to not even become involved in a deliberation.
texts such as chat rooms and newsgroups.[62][63][64][65]
When people do decide to participate, their participation
The Internet provides an anonymous setting, and it can be might be overruled by dominant others, or their contri-
argued that in an anonymous setting, fears of isolation and bution might be valued less or more, depending on their
humiliation would be reduced. Wallace recognized that status.[69] Dahlberg praises the Internet for its possibility
when people believe their actions cannot be attributed to to liberate people from the social hierarchies and power
them personally, they tend to become less inhibited by relations that exist offline: “The 'blindness’ of cyberspace
social conventions and restraints. This can be very pos- to bodily identity... [is supposed to allow] people to in-
itive, particularly when people are offered the opportu- teract as if they were equals. Arguments are said to be
nity to discuss difficult personal issues under conditions assessed by the value of the claims themselves and not
in which they feel safer.[66] the social position of the poster”.[75]
The groups’ ability to taunt an individual is lessened on Gastil sees this feature as one of the strongest points
the Internet, thus reducing the tendency to conform. Wal- of the Internet: “if computer-mediated interaction can
lace goes on to summarize a number of empirical studies consistently reduce the independent influence of sta-
that do find that dissenters feel more liberated to express tus, it will have a powerful advantage over face-to-face
their views online than offline, which might result from deliberation”.[76] While status cues are difficult to detect,
the fact that the person in the minority would not have perceptions about the status converge, and this lessens
to endure taunts or ridicule from people that are mak- stereotyping and prejudice.[67]
ing up the majority, or be made to feel uncomfortable
It may be that people do feel more equal in online fo-
for having a different opinion.[67] Stromer-Galley con-
rums than they feel offline. Racism, ageism, and other
sidered that “an absence of non-verbal cues, which leads
kinds of discrimination against out groups “seems to be
to a lowered sense of social presence, and a heightened
diminishing because the cues to out-group status are not
sense of anonymity” frees people from the psychological
as obvious”.[77] Next to this, the Internet has rapidly and
barriers that keep them from engaging in a face-to-face
dramatically increased the capacities to develop, share
deliberation.[68]
and organize information,[78] realizing more equality of
The crux of the spiral of silence is that people believe con- access to information.[79]
sciously or subconsciously that the expression of unpopu-
lar opinions will lead to negative repercussions. These
beliefs may not exist on the Internet for several rea- 7 Methodological research ap-
sons. First, embarrassment and humiliation depends on
the physical presence of others. In computer-mediated proaches
communication, physical isolation often already exists
and poses no further threat.[69] Second, a great deal of The relationship between the perception of public opin-
normative influence is communicated through nonverbal ion and willingness to speak-up is mainly measured
cues, such as eye contact and gestures,[70] but computer- through surveys[80] In surveys, respondents are often
mediated communication typically precludes many of asked whether they would reveal their opinions given a
these cues. Third, Keisler, Siegel, and McQuire ob- hypothetical situation, right after their opinions about the
serve that nonverbal social context cues convey formality public opinion and their opinion is received. Whether
and status inequality in face-to-face communication.[71] asking hypothetical questions can reflect real life cases
When these cues are removed, the importance of social was questioned by some communication scholars, lead-
status as a source of influence recedes. Group hierar- ing to a criticism of this methodology as not being able
8 9 SEE ALSO

to capture what the respondent would do in a real-life the cultures.[85] Some cultures are more individualistic,
situation.[81] A research study addressed this criticism bywhich would support more of an individual’s own opin-
comparatively testing a spiral model both in a hypotheti- ion, while collectivist cultures support the overall group’s
cal survey and in a focus group.[81] The findings are in line
opinion and needs. Gender can be also considered as a
with the critic of hypothetical survey questions, demon- cultural factor. In some cultures, women’s “perception
strating a significant increase in the spiral of silence in of language, not public opinion, forces them to remain
focus groups.[81] quiet.”[85] Scheufele & Moy, further assert that certain
Among different approaches to survey methodology, conflict styles and cultural indicators should be used to
understand these differences.[86]
cross-sectional study design is the leading method em-
ployed to analyze and test the theory.[80] Cross-sectional Another criticism of the spiral of silence research is that
design involves the analysis of the relationship between the research designs do not observe the movement in the
public opinion and willingness to speak at one point in spiral over time. Critics propose that Noelle-Neumann’s
time.[80] emphasis on time[8] in the formation of the spiral should
While many of the research employ cross-sectional de- reflect on the methodology as well, and the dynamic na-
sign, there are some scholars employed panel data.[82] ture of the spiral model should be acknowledged. They
Under this methodology, three specific approaches have argue that the spiral of silence theory involves a “time
been used. Noelle-Neumann herself tested the theory factor”, considering that the changes in public opinion
from the aggregate level. Using this approach, the change eventually lead[83] to change in people’s assessments of the
process is “observed by comparing the absolute share of public opinion. Also, according to Spilchal, the spiral
people perceiving a majority climate with people will- of silence theory “ignores the evidence of the historical
[83]
ing to express their views over time.” The second ap- development of public opinion, both in theory and prac-
proach that has been used in Spiral of Silence research tice, through the extension of suffrage, organisation of
is conducting separate regressions for each panel survey political propaganda groups, the establishment of pres-
wave. The drawback for this approach is that the in- sure groups and political parties, the eligibility of ever
dividual change of climate and opinions perception is wider circles of public officials and, eventually, the in-
[87]
[83]
ignored. The last approach a few scholars used in con- stallation of several forms of direct democracy.”
ducting Spiral of Silence researches is to use changed Some scholars also provide understandings of the theory
scores as dependent variables. However, as intuitive as in the contemporary society by pointing out that “it is not
this approach may be, it “leads to well-documented dif- so much the actual statistical majority that generates pres-
ficulties with respect to statistical properties, such as re- sure for conformity as it is the climate of opinion con-
gression to the mean or the negative correlation of the veyed in large measure by the media.”[9] Under the great
change score with the time one state”.[83] influence by the media coverage, the climate of opinion
“is not invariably an accurate reflection of the distribution
of opinions within the polity.”[9]
8 Criticisms Further, Scheufele & Moy[86] find problems in the op-
erationalization of key terms, including willingness to
speak out. This construct should be measured in terms
The critics of this theory most often claim that individuals
of actually speaking out, not voting or other conceptu-
have different influences that affect whether they speak
ally similar constructs. Conformity experiments have no
out or not.
moral component, yet morality is a key construct in the
Research indicates that people fear isolation in their small model. These conformity experiments, particularly those
social circles more than they do in the population at large. by Asch form part of the base of the theory. Scholars
Within a large nation, one can always find a group of peo- question whether these conformity experiments are rele-
ple who share one’s opinions, however people fear isola- vant to the development of SOS.[86]
tion from their close family and friends more in theory.
Research has demonstrated that this fear of isolation is
stronger than the fear of being isolated from the entire 9 See also
public, as it is typically measured.[84]
Scholars have also argued that both personal character- • Asch conformity experiments
istics and various culture among different groups will
have influences on whether a person will willingly speak • Abilene paradox
out. If one person “has a positive self-concept and lacks • Bandwagon effect
a sense of shame, that person will speak out regard-
less of how she or he perceives the climate of public • Blue wall of silence
opinion.”[85] Another influence critics give for people • Bradley effect
choosing not to speak out against public opinion is cul-
ture. Open expression of ideas is forbidden in some of • Bystander effect
10.1 References 9

• Cognitive bias [11] McCombs, M. E; Shaw, D. L (1972). “The agenda-setting

function of mass media”. Public Opinion Quarterly. 36
• Collective behavior (2): 176–187. doi:10.1086/267990.
• Communal reinforcement [12] Ball-Rokeach, S; Cantor, M. G (1986). Media, audience,
and social structure. Sage Publications, Inc.
• Conformity
[13] Ho, Shirley S.; Chen, Vivian Hsueh-Hua; Sim, Clarice
• Conspiracy of silence (expression) C. (2013-04-01). “The spiral of silence: exam-
ining how cultural predispositions, news attention,
• Flaming (Internet)
and opinion congruency relate to opinion expression”.
• Foot-in-the-door technique Asian Journal of Communication. 23 (2): 113–134.
doi:10.1080/01292986.2012.725178. ISSN 0129-2986.
• Group behaviour
[14] Glynn, C. J; McLeod, J.M (1984). “Implications of the
• Groupthink spiral of silence theory for communication and public
opinion research”. Political communication yearbook: 43–
• Memory hole 65.
• Opinion corridor [15] Kennamer, J.D (1990). “Self-serving biases in perceiv-
ing the opinions of others: Implications for the spiral of
• Overton window silence”. Communication Research. 17 (3): 393–404.
doi:10.1177/009365090017003006.
• Pluralistic ignorance
[16] Tichenor, P. J; Wackman, D. B (1973). “Mass
• Shame society
media and community public opinion”. Amer-
• Shy Tory Factor ican Behavioral Scientist. 16 (4): 593–606.
doi:10.1177/000276427301600408.
• Silent majority
[17] Griffen 2009.
• Third rail of politics
[18] Cherry 2012.
• Tyranny of the majority
[19] Weiman, Gabriel (2000). Communicating Unreality (1st
ed.). United States of America: Sage Publications, Inc.

10 Notes [20] Miller 2005, p. 278.

[21] Scheufele & Moy 1999.

10.1 References
[22] Shelton, J. Nicole (2005). “Intergroup Contact and
[1] Scheufele 2007. Pluralistic Ignorance”. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology. 88 (1): 91–107. doi:10.1037/0022-
[2] Neill 2009, p. 42. 3514.88.1.91. PMID 15631577.

[3] West, Richard; Turner, Lynn H. (2010). Introducing
Communication Theory: Analysis and Applicatinon. New
York: McGraw Hill. p. 411. ISBN 978-0-07-338507-5.
[4] Noelle-Neumann 1984.
[5] Noelle-Neumann 1977.
[6] Miller 2005, p. 278.
[7] Kant 1781, p. 498.
[8] Neolle-Neumann, Elisabeth (1993). The spiral of silence:
Public opinion, our social skin. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
[9] Lang, Kurt; Lang, Gladys Engel (2012-09-01). “What is
this Thing we Call Public Opinion? Reflections on the
Spiral of Silence”. International Journal of Public Opinion
Research. 24 (3): 368–386. doi:10.1093/ijpor/eds014.
ISSN 0954-2892.
[10] Lippmann, W (1946). Public opinion. Transaction Pub-
lishers.
[23] Miller 2005, p. 279.
[24] Wedel, T (1994). “The spiral of silence in popular culture:
applying a public opinion theory to radio station popular-
ity”. California State University.
[25] Shanahan, Scheufele & Yang Hizi.
[26] Salmon, C.T; Neuwirth, k (1990). “Perceptions of opin-
ion “climates” and willingness to discuss the issue of abor-
tion”. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 67
(3): 567–577. doi:10.1177/107769909006700312.
[27] Moy, P; Domke, D; Stamm, K (2001). “The spiral of
silence and public opinion on affirmative action”. Jour-
nalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 78 (1): 7–25.
doi:10.1177/107769900107800102.
[28] Hayes, A.F (2007). “Exploring the Forms of
Self‐Censorship: On the Spiral of Silence and the Use of
Opinion Expression Avoidance Strategies”. Journal of
Communication. 57 (4): 785–802. doi:10.1111/j.1460-
2466.2007.00368.x.
10 10 NOTES

[29] Milgram, S (1961). “Nationality and confor- [49] Rheingold 1993.

mity”. Scientific American. 205 (6): 45–51.
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1261-45. [50] Cummings, Sproull & Kiesler 2002.

[30] Bond, Rod; Smith, Peter B. (1996). “Culture and con- [51] McKenna & Bargh 1998.
formity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b,
[52] Bowker et al. 1998.
1956) line judgment task.”. Psychological Bulletin. 119
(1): 111–137. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.111. [53] Witschge 2002.
[31] Huang 2005. [54] Witschge 2002, p. 8.
[32] Spencer & Stephen 2008. [55] van Alstyne & Brynjolfsson 1996, p. 24.
[33] Henson & Denker 2007. [56] Coleman & Gøtze 2001, p. 17.
[34] McDevitt, M. (1 December 2003). “Spiral of Moderation: [57] O'Hara 2002.
Opinion Expression in Computer-Mediated Discussion”.
International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 15 (4): [58] Liu & Fahmy 2009, p. 36.
454–470. doi:10.1093/ijpor/15.4.454.
[59] Liu & Fahmy 2009.
[35] Jung Choi, Yun; Lee, Cheolhan; Hyuk Lee, Jong (March
2004). “Influence of poll results on the advocates’ political [60] Nekmat; Gonzenbach (2013). JMCQ. 90 (4). Missing or
discourse: An application of functional analysis debates empty |title= (help)
to online messages in the 2002 Korean presidential elec-
tion”. Asian Journal of Communication. 14 (1): 95–110. [61] Page 1996, p. 124.
doi:10.1080/0129298042000195189. [62] Wanta & Dimitrova 2000.
[36] Askay, David A. (2015-12-01). “Silence in the [63] O'Sullivan 1995.
crowd: The spiral of silence contributing to the
positive bias of opinions in an online review sys- [64] Sproull & Kiesler 1992.
tem”. New Media & Society. 17 (11): 1811–1829.
doi:10.1177/1461444814535190. ISSN 1461-4448. [65] Hiltz, Johnson & Turoff 1986.

[37] Gearhart, Sherice; Zhang, Weiwu (2015-04-16). ""Was [66] Wallace 1999, pp. 124–25.
It Something I Said?" “No, It Was Something You
Posted!" A Study of the Spiral of Silence Theory [67] Wallace 1999.
in Social Media Contexts”. Cyberpsychology, Be-
[68] Stromer-Galley 2002, p. 35.
havior, and Social Networking. 18 (4): 208–213.
doi:10.1089/cyber.2014.0443. [69] McDevitt, Kiousis & Wahl-Jorgensen 2003.
[38] Gearhart, S.; Zhang, W. (23 September 2013). “Gay [70] Burgoon, Buller & Woodall 1989.
Bullying and Online Opinion Expression: Testing Spi-
ral of Silence in the Social Media Environment”. [71] Keisler, Siegel & McQuire 1984.
Social Science Computer Review. 32 (1): 18–36.
doi:10.1177/0894439313504261. [72] Williams 1977.

[39] Dalisay, Francis; Hmielowski, Jay D.; Kushin, Matthew [73] Short, Williams & Christie 1976.
James; Yamamoto, Masahiro (2012). “Social Capital and
[74] Rice & Williams 1984.
the Spiral of Silence”. Journal of Public Opinion Re-
search. 24 (3): 325–345. doi:10.1093/ijpor/eds023. [75] Dahlberg 2001, p. 14.
[40] O'Connor 1969. [76] Gastil 2000, p. 359.
[41] O'Connor 1972. [77] Wallace 1999, p. 99.
[42] Gottman, Gonso & Rasmussen 1975. [78] Warren 2001.
[43] Kraut et al. 1998. [79] Gimmler 2001.
[44] Moody 2001. [80] Neuwirth, K (2007). “The Spiral of Silence and Fear of
Isolation”. Journal of Communication. 57 (3): 450–468.
[45] Sleek 1998.
doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00352.x.
[46] Morris & Ogan 2002.
[81] Scheufele, D. A.; Shanahan, J.; Lee, E. (1 June 2001).
[47] Bradley & Poppen 2003. “Real Talk: Manipulating the Dependent Variable in Spi-
ral of Silence Research”. Communication Research. 28
[48] Sassenberg 2002. (3): 304–324. doi:10.1177/009365001028003003.
10.2 Bibliography
[82] Katz, Cheryl; Baldassare, Mark (1994). “Popularity in a
Freefall: Measuring a Spiral of Silence at the End of the
Bush Presidency”. International Journal of Public Opinion
Research. 6 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1093/ijpor/6.1.1.
[83] Matthes, J. (2014). “Observing the “Spiral” in the Spi-
ral of Silence”. International Journal of Public Opinion
Research. 27 (2): 155–176. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edu032.
[84] Moy, Domke & Stamm 2001.
[85] Ross 2007.
[86] Scheufle, Dietram A.; Moy, Patricia (2000-03-01).
“Twenty-Five Years of the Spiral of Silence: A Con-
ceptual Review and Empirical Outlook”. International
Journal of Public Opinion Research. 12 (1): 3–28.
doi:10.1093/ijpor/12.1.3. ISSN 0954-2892.
[87] Splichal, Slavko (2015). “Legacy of Elisabeth Noelle-
Neumann: The Spiral of Silence and Other Controver-
sies”. European Journal of Communication. 30 (3): 353–
363. doi:10.1177/0267323115589265.
10.2 Bibliography
• van Alstyne, M; Brynjolfsson, E (1996), Electronic
communities: Global village or cyberbalkans? (pa-
per), Cleveland, OH: The International Conference
on Information Systems.
• Anderson, JA (1996), Communication theory:
epistemological foundations, New York, NY: Guil-
ford.
• Bradley, N; Poppen, W (2003), "Assistive technol-
ogy, computers and Internet may decrease sense of
isolation for homebound elderly and disabled per-
sons”, 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: 447–63.
• Burgoon, JK; Buller, DB; Woodall, WG (1989),
Nonverbal communication: The unspoken dialogue,
New York: Harper & Row.
• Cherry, Kendra (2012), “The Asch Conformity Ex-
periments”, Psychology, About, retrieved Oct 8,
2013.
• Coleman, S; Gøtze, J (2001), Bowling together: On-
line public engagement in policy deliberation (PDF).
• Cummings, J; Sproull, L; Kiesler, SB (2002), “Be-
yond hearing: Where real-world and online sup-
port meet”, Group Dynamics: Theory, Research,
and Practice, 6 (1): 78–88, doi:10.1037/1089-
2699.6.1.78.
11
• Dahlberg, L (2001), “The Internet and democratic
discourse”, Information, Communication & Society,
4 (4): 615–33, doi:10.1080/13691180110097030.
• Gastil, J (2000), “Is face-to-face citizen deliberation
a luxury or a necessity?", Political Communication,
14 (4): 357–61, doi:10.1080/10584600050178960.
• Gimmler, A (2001), "Deliberative democracy,
the public sphere and the Internet”, Philos-
ophy and Social Criticism, 27 (4): 357–61,
doi:10.1177/019145370102700402.
• Gonzenbach, WJ; King, C; Jablonski, P
(1999), “Homosexuals and the military: an
analysis of the spiral of silence”, Howard
Journal of Communication, 10 (4): 281–96,
doi:10.1080/106461799246762.
• ———; Stevenson, RL (1994), “Children with
AIDS attending public school: an analysis of the
spiral of silence”, Political Communication, 1: 3–18,
doi:10.1080/10584609.1994.9963007.
• Gottman, J; Gonso, J; Rasmussen, B (1975), "Social
interaction, social competence, and friendship in
children”, Child Development, 46 (3): 709–18,
doi:10.2307/1128569.
• Griffen, EM (2009), A first look at communication
theory (7th ed.), New York, NY: McGraw Hill.
• Hayes, AF; Glynn, CJ; Shanahan, J (2005a), “Will-
ingness to self-censor: A construct and measure-
ment tool for public opinion research”, International
Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17 (3): 298–
323, doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh073.
• ———; Glynn, CJ; Shanahan, J (2005b), “17”, Val-
idating the willingness to self-censor scale: Individual
differences in the effect of the climate of opinion on
opinion expression, pp. 443–55.
• Henson, J; Denker, K (2007), “I'm a Republican,
but please don't tell: an application of spiral of si-
lence theory to perceptions of classroom climate”,
Conference Papers, National Communication Asso-
ciation, 1.
• Hiltz, SR; Johnson, K; Turoff, M (1986), “Ex-
periments in group decision making: Communi-
cation process and outcome in face-to-face versus
computerized conferences”, Human Communica-
tion Research, 13 (2): 225–52, doi:10.1111/j.1468-
2958.1986.tb00104.x.
• Huang, Huiping (2005), “A Cross-Cultural Test
of the Spiral of Silence”, International Jour-
nal of Public Opinion Research, 17 (3): 1–25,
doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh065.
• Kant, Immanuel (1781), Critique of Pure Reason
12
• Kiesler, S; Siegel, J; McQuire, TW (1984),
"Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated
communication”, American Psychologist, 39 (10):
1123–34, doi:10.1037/0003-066x.39.10.1123.
• Kraut, RE; Patterson, M; Lundmark, V; Kiesler,
S; Mukhopadhyay, T; Scherlis, W (1998), “In-
ternet paradox: A social technology that re-
duces social involvement and psychological well-
being?", American Psychologist, 53 (9): 1017–32,
doi:10.1037/0003-066x.53.9.1017.
• Liu, X; Fahmy, S (2009), Testing the spiral of silence
in the virtual world: Monitoring opinion-climate on-
line and individuals’ willingness to express personal
opinions in online versus offline settings (conference
paper), 1, International Communication Associa-
tion, p. 36.
• McDevitt, M; Kiousis, S; Wahl-Jorgensen, K
(2003), “Spiral of moderation: Opinion expres-
sion in computer-mediated discussion”, Interna-
tional Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15 (4):
454–70, doi:10.1093/ijpor/15.4.454.
• McKenna, KYA; Bargh, JA (1998), “Coming out
in the age of the Internet: Identity “demarginaliza-
tion” through virtual group participation”, Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (3): 681–
94, doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.681.
• Miller, K (2005), Communication theories: perspec-
tives, processes, and contexts (2nd ed.), New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Moody, EJ (2001), “Internet use and its relationship
to loneliness”, CyberPsychology & Behavior, 4 (3):
393–401, doi:10.1089/109493101300210303.
• Morris, M; Ogan, C (2002), McQauil, D, ed., “The
internet as mass medium”, Reader in Mass Commu-
nication 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, 78
(1): 7–25, doi:10.1177/107769900107800102.
• Neill, Shelly (May 2009), “The Alternate Chan-
nel: How Social Media is Challenging the Spiral of
Silence Theory in GLBT Communities of Color”
(PDF), American University, Washington, DC, re-
trieved 2012-04-24
• Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth (1974), “The spiral of
silence: a theory of public opinion”, Journal of Com-
munication, 24 (2): 43–51, doi:10.1111/j.1460-
2466.1974.tb00367.x.[1]
• ——— (1977), “Turbulences in the climate of opin-
ion: Methodological applications of the spiral of
silence theory”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 41 (2):
143–58, doi:10.1086/268371.
10 NOTES
• O'Connor, RD (1969), “Modification of social
withdrawal through symbolic modeling”, Jour-
nal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2 (1): 15–
22, doi:10.1901/jaba.1969.2-15, PMC 1311030 ,
PMID 16795196.
• ——— (1972), “Relative efficacy of modeling,
shaping, and the combined procedures for modifica-
tion of social withdrawal”, Journal of Abnormal Psy-
chology, 79 (3): 327–34, doi:10.1037/h0033226,
PMID 5033375.
• O'Hara, K (2002), “The Internet: A tool for demo-
cratic pluralism?", Science as Culture, 11 (2): 287–
98, doi:10.1080/09505430220137298.
• O'Sullivan, PB (1995), “Computer networks and po-
litical participation: Santa Monica’s teledemocracy
project”, Applied Communication Research, 23 (2):
93–107, doi:10.1080/00909889509365417.
• Page, BI (1996), Who deliberates? Mass Me-
dia in Modern Democracy, Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
• Rheingold, H (1993), The virtual community.
Homesteading on the electronic frontier, Reading.
• Rice, RE; Williams, F (1984), “Theories old and
new: The study of new media”, in Rice, RE, The
new media: Communication, research, and technol-
ogy, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 55–80.
• Ross, C (2007), Considering and communicating
more world views: New directions for the spiral of
silence (conference papers), 1, National Communi-
cation Association.
• Sassenberg, K (2002), “Common bond and common
identity groups on the Internet: Attachment and nor-
mative behaviors in on-topic and off-topic chats”,
Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice,
6 (1): 27–37, doi:10.1037/1089-2699.6.1.27.
• Scheufele, Dietram A; Moy, P (2000), “Twenty-
five years of the spiral of silence: A conceptual
review and empirical outlook”, International Jour-
nal of Public Opinion Research, 12 (1): 3–28,
doi:10.1093/ijpor/12.1.3.
• ——— (2007), “Opinion climates, spirals of
silence, and biotechnology: Public opinion as
a heuristic for scientific decision making”, in
Brossard, D; Shanahan, J; Nesbit, TC, The public,
the media, and agricultural biotechnology: An in-
ternational casebook, Cambridge, MA: Oxford Uni-
versity Press, pp. 231–41
• Schmierback, M; Boyle, MP; McLeod, DM (2005),
“Civic attachment in the aftermath of September
11”, Mass Communication and Society, 8 (4): 323–
46, doi:10.1207/s15327825mcs0804_3.
10.2 Bibliography 13

• Shanahan, J; Scheufele, Dietram A; Yang,

Fang; Hizi, S (2004), “Cultivation and spiral
of silence effects:the case of smoking”, Mass
Communication and Society, 7 (4): 413–28,
doi:10.1207/s15327825mcs0704_3.

• Short, J; Williams, E; Christie, B (1976), The social

psychology of telecommunications, New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
• Sleek, S (1998), “Isolation increases with Internet
use”, American Psychological Association Monitor,
29 (1): 1.

• Spencer, Anthony; Stephen, Croucher (2008),

“Basque Nationalism and the Spiral of Silence”, In-
ternational Communication Gazette, 70 (2): 137–53,
doi:10.1177/1748048507086909.
• 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 politi-

cal 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 discus-
sions during the final 1996 U.S. presidential debate
(paper), Acapulco, MX: The International Commu-
nication Association.
• Warren, ME (2001), “What should we expect from
more democracy? Radically democratic responses
to politics”, Political Theory, 24 (2): 241–70,
doi:10.1177/0090591796024002004.
• Williams, E (1977), “Experimental comparison of
face-to-face and mediated communication: A re-
view”, Psychological Bulletin, 84 (5): 963–76,
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.84.5.963.
• Witschge, T (2002), Online Deliberation: Possi-
bilities of the Internet for deliberative democracy
(paper), Nijmegen, NL: The Euricom Colloquium
Electronic Networks & Democratic Engagement.

[1] Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth (1993). The spiral of silence:

Public opinion, our social skin (2 ed.). Chicago: University
of Chicago Press. p. 200.
14 11 TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

11 Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

11.1 Text
• Spiral of silence Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_of_silence?oldid=740012235 Contributors: Edward, Wapcaplet, Charles
Matthews, Phoebe, Vinay Varma, Chrism, Meelar, Gidonb, Michael Snow, Ryz, Curps, Mingwangx, FrozenUmbrella, Wheresmysocks,
Mike Rosoft, Shiftchange, Bender235, ESkog, Lysdexia, TheParanoidOne, Shadowolf, Tomlzz1, Rauh, Japanese Searobin, Woohookitty,
Rjwilmsi, Nightscream, Siddhant, YurikBot, RussBot, R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine), Mavaddat, C mon, SmackBot, Mike McGre-
gor (Can), Septegram, Chris the speller, Bluebot, Nbarth, Ted87, Andrew c, Antonielly, Syncrotic, Santa Sangre, Levineps, Leyte-
Wolfer, Bobamnertiopsis, Penbat, Gregbard, Clayoquot, Dalobuca~enwiki, PKT, Bethan 182, Z10x, Cgingold, Oicumayberight, Some-
thing Sparkly, AstroHurricane001, PatríciaR, Maurice Carbonaro, Christian Storm, STBotD, Tagus, Delikedi, VolkovBot, TXiKiBoT,
Scheufele, Derrlf, DVresearcher, Natg 19, Edwin Herdman, Pampompim, Xbladerunner, RobinHood70, ClueBot, SummerWithMorons,
Kai-Hendrik, Piledhigheranddeeper, ResidueOfDesign, Drawn Some, Psinu, 7&6=thirteen, David Delony, Nepenthes, Borock, Addbot,
Alexchristofi, AnnieLester, Blaylockjam10, Luckas-bot, Timurite, Yobot, Anypodetos, Meo Hav, AnomieBOT, Citation bot, Arthur-
Bot, LilHelpa, Xqbot, MercuryApex, GrouchoBot, JonDePlume, Armadillo35, Someguy314159, LilyKitty, Claysw, John of Reading,
Js4836a, Passionless, Artisticidea, Erianna, Anonimski, U3964057, BG19bot, Northamerica1000, Pacerier, Marcocapelle, Ongepotchket,
Hamish59, BattyBot, Profaneprimate, MiaKamal, Aristide2015, MBRO3, Jmhansel, IjonTichyIjonTichy, Lugia2453, Me, Myself, and I
are Here, Toksoz, Aeziegler, DocLsc, RBarker11, Emb429, SJ Defender, Fixuture, Monkbot, Ihaveacatonmydesk, Handanuslu, Sklie66,
Hs726 and Anonymous: 98

11.2 Images
• File:Edit-clear.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Edit-clear.svg License: Public domain Contributors: ? Origi-
nal artist: ?
• File:Free-to-read_lock_75.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/80/Free-to-read_lock_75.svg License: CC0
Contributors: Adapted from 9px|Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white_green.svg Original artist: This version:Trappist_the_monk (talk)
(Uploads)
• File:Logo_sociology.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Logo_sociology.svg License: Public domain
Contributors: Own work Original artist: Tomeq183
• File:Psi2.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Psi2.svg License: Public domain Contributors: No machine-
readable source provided. Own work assumed (based on copyright claims). Original artist: No machine-readable author provided.
Gdh~commonswiki assumed (based on copyright claims).

11.3 Content license

• Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0