In a legal context, a chilling effect is the inhibition or discouragement of the legitimate exercise of natural and legal rights by the threat of legal sanction. A chilling effect may be caused by legal actions such as the passing of a law, the decision of a court, or the threat of a lawsuit;
any legal action that would cause people to hesitate to exercise a
legitimate right (freedom of speech or otherwise) for fear of legal
repercussions. When that fear is brought about by the threat of a libel lawsuit, it is called libel chill. A lawsuit initiated specifically for the purpose of creating a chilling effect may be called a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP).
"Chilling" in this context normally implies an undesirable slowing. Outside the legal context in common usage; any coercion
or threat of coercion (or other unpleasantries) can have a chilling
effect on a group of people regarding a specific behavior, and often can
be statistically measured or be plainly observed. For example, the news
headline "Flood insurance [price] spikes have chilling effect on some
home sales," and the abstract title of a two-part survey of 160 college students
involved in dating relationships: "The chilling effect of aggressive
potential on the expression of complaints in intimate relationships."
Usage
In United States and Canadian law, the term chilling effects refers to the stifling effect that vague or excessively broad laws may have on legitimate speech activity.
However, the term is also now commonly used outside American legal jargon, such as the chilling effects of high prices or of corrupt police, or of "anticipated aggressive repercussions" (in say, personal relationships).
A chilling effect is an effect that reduces, suppresses,
discourages, delays, or otherwise retards reporting concerns of any
kind.
An example of the "chilling effect" in Canadian case law can be found in Iorfida v. MacIntyre
in which a party challenged the constitutionality of a criminal law
prohibiting the publication of literature depicting illicit drug use.
The court found that the law had a "chilling effect" on legitimate forms
of expression and could stifle political debate on issues such as the
legalization of marijuana. The court noted that it did not adopt the same "chilling effect"
analysis used in American law but considered the chilling effect of the
law as a part of its own analysis.
Regarding Ömer Faruk Gergerlioğlu's
case in Turkey, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights (OHCHR) said that Turkey's mis-use of counter-terrorism
measures can have a chilling effect on the enjoyment of fundamental
freedoms and human rights.
For to distrust the judgement and
the honesty of one who hath but a common repute in learning and never
yet offended, as not to count him fit to print his mind without a tutor
or examiner, lest he should drop a schism or something of corruption, is
the greatest displeasure and indignity to a free and knowing spirit
that can be put upon him.
The term chilling effect has been in use in the United States since as early as 1950. The United States Supreme Court first refers to the "chilling effect" in the context of the United States Constitution in Wieman v. Updegraff in 1952.
The Lamont case, however, did not center around a law that
explicitly stifles free speech. The "chilling effect" referred to at
the time was a "deterrent effect" on freedom of expression—even when
there is no law explicitly prohibiting it. However, in general, the term
"chilling effect" is also used in reference to laws or actions that may
not explicitly prohibit legitimate speech, but rather impose undue
burden on speech.
Chilling effects on Wikipedia users
Edward Snowden disclosed in 2013 that the US government's Upstream program was collecting data on people reading Wikipedia articles. This revelation had significant impact on the self-censorship of the readers, as shown by the fact that there were substantially fewer views for articles related to terrorism and security. The court case Wikimedia Foundation v. NSA has since followed.
Hacking started his teaching career as an instructor at Princeton University in 1960 but, after just one year, moved to the University of Virginia as an assistant professor. After working as a research fellow at Peterhouse, Cambridge
from 1962 to 1964, he taught at his alma mater, UBC, first as an
assistant professor and later as an associate professor from 1964 to
1969. He became a lecturer at Cambridge, again a member of Peterhouse,
in 1969 before moving to Stanford University in 1974. After teaching for several years at Stanford, he spent a year at the Center for Interdisciplinary Research in Bielefeld, Germany, from 1982 to 1983. Hacking was promoted to Professor of Philosophy at the University of Toronto in 1983 and University Professor, the highest honour the University of Toronto bestows on faculty, in 1991. From 2000 to 2006, he held the Chair of Philosophy and History of Scientific Concepts at the Collège de France. Hacking is the first Anglophone to be elected to a permanent chair in the Collège's history. After retiring from the Collège de France, Hacking was a professor of philosophy at UC Santa Cruz, from 2008 to 2010. He concluded his teaching career in 2011 as a visiting professor at the University of Cape Town.
Hacking was married three times: his first two marriages, to Laura Anne Leach and fellow philosopher Nancy Cartwright,
ended in divorce. His third marriage, to Judith Baker, also a
philosopher, lasted until her death in 2014. He had two daughters and a
son, as well as one stepson.
Hacking died from heart failure at a retirement home in Toronto on May 10, 2023, at the age of 87.
Philosophical work
Influenced by debates involving Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos, Paul Feyerabend and others, Hacking is known for bringing a historical approach to the philosophy of science. The fourth edition (2010) of Feyerabend's 1975 book Against Method, and the 50th anniversary edition (2012) of Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions include an Introduction by Hacking. He is sometimes described as a member of the "Stanford School" in philosophy of science, a group that also includes John Dupré, Nancy Cartwright and Peter Galison. Hacking himself identified as a Cambridge analytic philosopher. Hacking was a main proponent of a realism about science called "entity realism." This form of realism encourages a realistic stance towards answers to
the scientific unknowns hypothesized by mature sciences (of the future),
but skepticism towards current scientific theories. Hacking has also
been influential in directing attention to the experimental and even
engineering practices of science, and their relative autonomy from
theory. Because of this, Hacking moved philosophical thinking a step
further than the initial historical, but heavily theory-focused, turn of
Kuhn and others.
After 1990, Hacking shifted his focus somewhat from the natural
sciences to the human sciences, partly under the influence of the work
of Michel Foucault. Foucault was an influence as early as 1975 when Hacking wrote Why Does Language Matter to Philosophy? and The Emergence of Probability.
In the latter book, Hacking proposed that the modern schism between
subjective or personalistic probability, and the long-run frequency
interpretation, emerged in the early modern era as an epistemological "break" involving two incompatible models of uncertainty and chance. As history, the idea of a sharp break has been criticized, but competing 'frequentist' and 'subjective' interpretations of probability still remain today. Foucault's approach to knowledge systems
and power is also reflected in Hacking's work on the historical
mutability of psychiatric disorders and institutional roles for
statistical reasoning in the 19th century, his focus in The Taming of Chance (1990) and other writings. He labels his approach to the human sciences transcendental nominalism (also dynamic nominalism or dialectical realism), a historicised form of nominalism
that traces the mutual interactions over time between the phenomena of
the human world and our conceptions and classifications of them.
In Mad Travelers (1998) Hacking provided a historical account of the effects of a medical condition known as fugue
in the late 1890s. Fugue, also known as "mad travel," is a diagnosable
type of insanity in which European men would walk in a trance for
hundreds of miles without knowledge of their identities.
Awards and lectures
In 2002, Hacking was awarded the first Killam Prize for the Humanities, Canada's most distinguished award for outstanding career achievements. He was made a Companion of the Order of Canada (CC) in 2004. Hacking was appointed visiting professor at University of California, Santa Cruz for the Winters of 2008 and 2009. On August 25, 2009, Hacking was named winner of the Holberg International Memorial Prize, a Norwegian award for scholarly work in the arts and humanities, social sciences, law and theology.
In 2003, he gave the Sigmund H. Danziger Jr. Memorial Lecture in
the Humanities, and in 2010 he gave the René Descartes Lectures at the
Tilburg Center for Logic and Philosophy of Science (TiLPS). Hacking also
gave the Howison lectures at the University of California, Berkeley,
on the topic of mathematics and its sources in human behavior ('Proof,
Truth, Hands and Mind') in 2010. In 2012, Hacking was awarded the Austrian Decoration for Science and Art, and in 2014 he was awarded the Balzan Prize.
The spiral of silence theory is a political science and mass communication theory which states that an individual's perception of the distribution of public opinion influences that individual's willingness to express their own opinions. Also known as the theory of public opinion, the spiral of silence
theory claims individuals will be more confident and outward with their
opinion when they notice that their personal opinion is shared
throughout a group. But if the individual notices that their opinion is
unpopular with the group, they will be more inclined to be reserved and
remain silent. In other words, from the individual's perspective, "not
isolating themself is more important than their own judgement", meaning
their perception of how others in the group perceive them is more
important to themself than the need for their opinion to be heard.
According to Glynn (1995), "the major components of the spiral of silence include (1) an issue of public interest;
(2) divisiveness on the issue; (3) a quasi-statistical sense that helps
an individual perceive the climate of opinion as well as estimate the
majority and minority opinion; (4) 'fear of isolation' from social interaction "(though, whether this is a causal factor in the willingness to speak out is contested)";
(5) an individual's belief that a minority (or 'different') opinion
isolates oneself from others; and (6) a 'hardcore' group of people whose
opinions are unaffected by others' opinions."
The theory is not without criticism, some arguing that its widely
understood definition and parameters have not been updated to reflect
the behavior of 21st century society. Others point out that there is no room within the theory to account for variables of influence other than social isolation.
Background
In 1974, Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, a Germanpolitical scientist,
created the model called "Spiral of Silence". She believed that an
"individuals willingness to express his or her opinion was a function of
how he or she perceived public opinion." In 1974, Neumann and her husband founded the "Public Opinion
Organization" in Germany. She was also the President of the "World
Association for Public Opinion Research" from 1978 to 1980.
Noelle-Neumann evolved the spiral of silence theory from research on the 1965 West German federal election. The research, according to Noelle-Neumann, "measured a lot more than we understood." The two major parties were locked in a dead heat from December until
September, with a series of questions of public perception of the
election winner was showing steady, independent movement. During the
final days of the election, 3 to 4% of the voters shifted in the
direction of the public's perception of the winner. A similar shift
happened in the 1972 election, which began the development of the spiral of silence as a theory of public opinion.
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 vocal in forums of public
disclosure." The spiral of silence theory suggests that "people who have believed
that they hold a minority viewpoint on a public issue will remain in the
background where their communication will be restrained; those who
believe that they hold a majority viewpoint will be more encouraged to
speak." The spiral of silence theory arose from a combination of high public
uncertainty about a topic with an increase in the flow of communication.
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 influence people's willingness to publicly express
opinions on issues, such as agricultural biotechnology." This micro effect is seen in experiments such as the Asch conformity experiments,
conducted as early as the 1950s, in which a group of students are asked
to compare the length of lines. All but one student are coached ahead
of time on what answers to give and how to behave. When the coached
subjects gave unanimously incorrect answers, the dissenter tended to
agree with the majority, at times even when the difference between the
lines was so egregious as seven inches. On the macro
level, the spiral of silence occurs if more and more members of the
perceived minority fall silent. This is when public perceptions of the
opinion climate begin to shift. "In other words, a person's individual reluctance to express his or her
opinion, simply based on perceptions of what everyone else thinks, has
important implications at the social level." As one opinion gains interest, the amount of exposure it receives
increases, leading the public to believe it is the majority. The
perceived minority then faces the threat and fear of isolation from
society unless they conform. As the opinion gains momentum, the
perceived minority falls deeper into their silence. This continues until
the perceived minority no longer speaks out against it, either by
presenting an image of agreement or actually conforming, and the opinion
of the perceived majority ultimately becomes a social norm. Large scale effects of the spiral of silence can be seen when examining
the growth of the dominant opinion within a countries political climate
or other such issues.
The spiral of silence has continued to be observed and studied
since then. In today's world, technology can play a key part in the
spiral of silence, something that could not have been predicted at the
time of its inception. For example, survey data showed that during the
2016 US presidential election, opinion congruency for democratic
candidate Hillary Clinton in society at large and for republican candidate Donald Trump on Facebook had indirect associations for willingness to present one's opinion both offline and online.
Spiral model
The spiral model is used to visually represent the theory.
It claims that an individual is more likely to go down the spiral if
his or her opinion does not conform with the perceived majority opinion. The following steps summarize how the process works:
The model begins with individuals' inherent desire to blend with
society. The fear of social isolation is necessary for the spiral to
occur.
Individuals who notice that their personal opinion is spreading will
voice this opinion confidently in public. On the other hand,
individuals who notice that their opinions are losing ground will be
inclined to adopt a more reserved attitude when expressing their
opinions in public.
Representatives of the spreading opinion talk quite a lot while the
representatives of the second opinion remain silent. An opinion that is
being reinforced in this way appears stronger than it is, while a
suppressed opinion will seem weaker than it is.
The result is a spiral process which prompts other individuals to
perceive the changes in opinion and follow suit until one opinion
becomes established as the prevailing attitude. Meanwhile, the other
opinion is pushed back and rejected by most. The end of the spiral refers to the number of people who are not publicly expressing their opinions, due to the fear of isolation.
In summary, the spiral model 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 begins a spiraling process which increasingly
establishes one opinion as the dominant one.
Furthermore, 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.
Relationship with other kinds of social influence
The basic ideas for the spiral of silence are not unique and are closely related to theories on conformity.
In 1987, Kerr, MacCoun, Hansen and Hymes introduced the idea of the
"momentum effect". The momentum effect states that if some members of a
group move toward a particular opinion, others will follow. Others have described similar "gain-loss effect" (Aronson & Linder, 1965), and "bandwagon effect"
(Myers & Lamm, 1976). Experiments also show how the spiral of
silence and the bandwagon effect jointly undermine minority positions
when pre-election polls are shown to voters.
Epistemology
Public
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.
Opinion
"Common Opinion" is how the Scottishsocial philosopherDavid 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." 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." 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.
Public opinion
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
Whoever desires to grasp and define the concept of public opinion will recognize quickly that he is dealing with a Proteus,
a being that appears simultaneously in a thousand guises, both visible
and as a phantom, impotent and surprisingly efficacious, which presents
itself in innumerable transformations and is forever slipping through
our fingers just as we believe 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.
It was said to be a "fiction that belonged in a museum of the history of ideas; it could only be of historical interest."
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."
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."
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." 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.
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
Media and public opinion
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. 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."
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. 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. The media battle with these news alternatives by creating "pseudo-crises" and "pseudo-novelties."
Media's characteristics as a communication tool further affect
people's perception of their own ideas in regard to the public opinion. 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." 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, the spiral model assumes an active audience "who consumes media products in the context of their personal and social goals." Knowledge "gained from the mass media may offer ammunition for people
to express their opinions and offer a rationale for their own 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 offer a rationale for their own opinion
than were those who have a high fear of isolation."
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.Some empirical research align with this perspective; suggesting that the "micro-climate" of an individual overwhelms the effects of the media. Other articles further suggest that talking with others is the primary way of understanding the opinion climate.
Social media
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."
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". 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.
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.
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. 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. 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. 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. For example, scholars find out that social bots can affect political discussion around the 2016 U.S. presidential election and the 2017 French presidential election.
Assumptions
Perception
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. 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.
Quasi-statistical organ
Noelle-Neumann
attributed this ability of assessing opinion climate on an issue to the
so-called "quasi-statistical organ", which refers to how individuals
unconsciously assess the distribution of viewpoints and the chances that
certain viewpoints will succeed over others. People assume they can sense and figure out what others are thinking.
The Mass media
play a large part in determining what the dominant opinion is, since
our direct observation is limited to a small percentage of the
population. The mass media have 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.
Pluralistic ignorance
Pluralistic ignorance may occur in some cases in which the minority opinion is incorrectly accepted as the norm.[1]
Group members may be privately rejecting a norm, but may falsely assume
that other group members accept it. This phenomenon, also known as a
collective illusions, is when people in a group think everyone else has a
different opinion from theirs and go along with the norm.
Fear of isolation
The spiral of silence can lead to a social group or society isolating or excluding members due to the members' opinions. This stipulates that individuals have a fear of isolation. This fear of isolation consequently leads to remaining silent instead of voicing opinions.
The fear of isolation is the "engine that drives the spiral of silence". Essentially, people fear becoming social isolates and thus take
measures to avoid such a consequence, as demonstrated by psychologist Solomon Asch in the Asch conformity experiments. People feel more comfortable agreeing with the dominant opinions instead of expressing their own ideas.
An underlying idea of the spiral of silence theory is that public
opinion acts as a form of social control. According to Noelle-Neumann's
definition this key concept describes "opinions on controversial issues
that one can express in public without isolating oneself". This assumption supposed that public opinion is governed by norms and
conventions, the violation of which will lead to sanctions against those
individuals. Going off of this assumption that going against public
opinion will lead to social sanctions, Noelle-Neumann assumes that human
beings have an inherent fear of isolation and will adapt their behavior
so that they will not be isolated from others. This “fear of isolation” is so strong that people will not express
opinions if they assume that these opinions differ from public opinion.
How does the fear of isolation function?
This
fear of social isolation is a central concept in Noelle-Neumann's
theory but throughout different studies on the theory it has been
conceptualized in many different ways. Some researchers have considered fear of social isolation to be
transitory and triggered by the exposure to a situation in which an
individual is expected to express an opinion. In this conceptualization
an individual's perception of the opinion climate in a specific
situation would trigger the fear of isolation in that moment.
Other researchers have argued that instead of a
situation-specific reaction, fear of social isolation can be viewed as
individual characteristic that varies between people and leads
individuals to continuously monitor their environment for cues about the
opinion climate. While there are individuals who generally do not
suffer from a fear of isolation (what Noelle-Neumann referred to as
Hardcores)
others are constantly aware of their social environment and faced with a
constant fear of isolation. Individuals who bear this characteristic of
fear of social isolation and at the same time perceive their opinion to
be incongruent with the majority opinion climate are less likely to be
willing to voice their opinion. In this line of spiral of silence
research fear of social isolation is a key concept in formation of
public opinion, however research has often assumed this
conceptualization as a fact without empirical proof or been inconsistent in the empirical measurement of this phenomenon.
Recent research has been able to capture the concept of fear of
social isolation in a more reliable and consistent way. One example is
research conducted by Mathes (2012) in which the researchers used an individual differences approach based
on individual's character traits and measured individual's fear of
social isolation using psychometric properties. Mathes (2012), as well as other researchers, considers fear of social isolation to be a subsequent reaction to
encountering a perceived hostile opinion climate which in turn leads the
individual to not voice their own opinions and therefore sets in motion
the spiral of silence.
Although many accept fear of isolation to be the motivation
behind the theory, arguments have been made for other causal factors. For example, Lasorsa proposed it may be less a fear of isolation fueling the spiral, and
more about political interest (in the case of political debate) and
self-efficacy. From a more positive standpoint, Taylor suggested the
benefits of opinion expression, whether that opinion was common or not,
to be the motivation. When studying the willingness to discuss an issue so divisive as
abortion, Salmon and Neuwirth found only "mixed supportive evidence" for
fear of isolation, and instead found that knowledge and personal
concern of the issue played important roles. More examples follow at the end of the article.
Responses to disputed and undisputed opinions
Where
opinions are relatively definite and static – customs, for example –
one has to express 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.
Vocal minority and hardcore
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. 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." 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."
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.
Real world application of the theory
The spiral of silence has brought insight regarding diverse topics, ranging from speaking about popular culture phenomena to smoking. Considering that the spiral of silence is more likely to occur in controversial issues and issues with a moral component, many scholars have applied the theory to controversial topics, such as abortion, affirmative action, capital punishment, mandatory COVID-19 vaccines and masking.
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 engagement in collective activities". One study examines three individual-level indicators of social capital: civic engagement,
trust and neighborliness, and the relationship between these indicators
and people's willingness to express their opinions and their perception
of support for one's opinions. The results suggest that civic
engagement has a direct effect on people's willingness to express their
opinions and neighborliness and trust had direct positive effects on
people's perception of support for one's opinions. Also, the study shows that "only a direct (but not indirect) effect of
civic engagement on opinion expression further highlights a potential
difference between bonding and bridging social capital".
Cross-cultural studies
Existing literature prior to the spiral of silence theory suggest a relationship between social conformity and culture, motivating communication scholars to conduct cross-cultural analysis of the theory. Scholars in the field of psychology in particular previously addressed the cultural variance involved in the conformity to the majority opinion. More recent studies confirm the link between conformity and culture: a meta-analysis regarding Asch conformity experiments, for example, suggest that collectivist cultures are more likely to exhibit conformity than the individualistic cultures.
The United States and Taiwan
"A Cross-Cultural Test of the Spiral of Silence" by Huiping Huang analyzes the results of a telephone survey done in Taiwan and the United States. The hypotheses tested were the beliefs that the United States is an "individualistic" society, while Taiwan is a "collectivist"
society. This suggested that the spiral of silence is less likely to be
activated in the United States, because individuals are more likely to
put emphasis on their personal goals. They put the "I" identity over the
"we" identity, and strive for personal success. Therefore, it was
hypothesized that they would be more likely to speak out, regardless of
if they are in the minority. On the other hand, it was predicted that
individuals in Taiwan put more emphasis on the collective goal, so they
would conform to the majority influence in hopes of avoiding tension and
conflict. The study also tested the effect of motives, including self-efficacy and self-assurance.
Telephone surveys were conducted; the citizens of the United States were questioned in regard to American involvement in Somalia,
and the citizens of Taiwan about the possibility of a direct
presidential election. Both issues focused on politics and human rights,
and were therefore comparable. Respondents were asked to choose
"favor", "neutral" or "oppose" in regard to the categories of
themselves, family and friends, the media, society, and society in the
future about the given issue. Measurements were also taken regarding the
individualism
and collectivism constructs, and the "motives of not expressing
opinion" based on a 1–10 and 1–5 scale respectively, in approval of
given statements.
Results showed support for the original hypothesis. Overall, Americans were more likely to speak out than Taiwanese.
Being incongruous with the majority lessened the motivation of the
Taiwanese to speak out (and they had a higher collectivist score), but
had little effect on the Americans. In Taiwan, future support and belief
of society played a large role in likeliness to voice an opinion, and
support that the activation of the spiral of silence 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 group. However, this was not true, but Huang
suggests that perhaps the issue chosen was not directly prevalent, and
therefore, they found it "unnecessary to voice their objections to the
majority opinion." Lack of self-efficacy led to lack of speaking out in
both countries.
Basque nationalism
Basque Nationalism and the Spiral of Silence is an article by Spencer and Croucher that analyzes the public perception 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. Individuals claimed that they were more likely to
voice their opinions to non-Basques, suggesting that they have a "fear
of isolation" in regard to fellow Basques.
Furthermore, the Spanish individuals questioned were more likely to be
silent because of their greater proximity to the violent acts.
Perceptions in the classroom
One study by Henson and Denker "investigates perceptions of silencing behaviors, political affiliation, and political differences as correlates to perceptions of the university classroom climates and communication behaviors." 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 silencing behaviors. The article stated that little
has been investigated into student-teacher interactions in the
classroom, and how the students are influenced. The goal of the article was to "determine how political ideas are
expressed in the university classrooms, and thus, assess the influence
of classroom communication on the perceptions of political tolerance."
The article claimed that university classrooms are an adequate
place to scrutinize the spiral of silence theory because it is a place
that has interpersonal, cultural, media, and political communication.
Henson and Denker said, "Because classroom interactions and societal
discourse are mutually influential, instructors and students bring their
own biases and cultural perspectives into the classroom."
The study researched whether there was a correlation between
students' perception that they were being politically 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. The researchers used participants from a Midwestern university's
communication courses. The students answered a survey over their
perceptions of political silencing, classroom climate, and the climate
created by the instructor. The results of this research found that there
is a positive relationship of the perceived similarities in a political
party and ideological differences of the student and instructor to perceived greater political silencing.
In computer-mediated communication
While the studies regarding the spiral of silence theory focused on face-to-face interaction before 2000, the theory was later applied to a computer-mediated communication
environment. The first study in this context analyzed communication
behaviors in online chat rooms regarding the issue of abortion, and
revealed that minority opinion holders were more likely to speak out,
whereas their comments remained neutral. Another study focused on the Korean bulletin board postings regarding
the national election, and found a relationship between online postings
and the presentation of candidates in the mainstream media. 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. The spiral of silence theory is extended "into the context of
non-anonymous multichannel communication platforms" and "the need to
consider the role of communicative affordances in online opinion
expression" is also addressed.
The rising influence of the internet and social media
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. Other researchers have defined isolation as low levels of peer acceptance or high levels of peer rejection. 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 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. 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. 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.
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. 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. 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."
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. 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." 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." 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.
Online versus offline
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. Liu and Fahmy stated that "it is easy to quit from an online discussion
without the pressure of complying with the majority group." 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. But people in the online environment will speak up if someone has a reference group that speaks up for them.
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. 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
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." 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.
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.
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. 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.
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. Second, a great deal of normative influence is communicated through nonverbal cues, such as eye contact and gestures, 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. 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. The form and consequences of conformity influence should undergo significant changes given the interposition of a medium that reduces the social presence of participants. Social presence is defined as the degree of salience of the other person in the interaction or the degree to which the medium conveys some of the person's presence.
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. 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".
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". While status cues are difficult to detect, perceptions about the status converge, and this lessens stereotyping and prejudice.
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". Next to this, the Internet has rapidly and dramatically increased the capacities to develop, share and organizeinformation, realizing more equality of access to information.
Methodological research approaches
The relationship between the perception of public opinion and willingness to speak-up is mainly measured through surveys. 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. A research study addressed this criticism by comparatively testing a spiral model both in a hypothetical survey and in a focus group. The findings are in line with the critic of hypothetical survey
questions, demonstrating a significant increase in the spiral of silence
in focus groups.
Among different approaches to survey methodology, cross-sectional study design is the leading method employed to analyze and test the theory. Cross-sectional design involves the analysis of the relationship
between public opinion and willingness to speak at one point in time.
While many of the researchers employ cross-sectional design, some scholars employed panel data. 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." 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. 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".
Criticisms
The
critics of this theory most often claim that individuals have different
influences that affect whether they speak out or not.
Research indicates that people fear isolation in their small
social circles more than they do in the population at large. Within a
large nation, one can always find a group of people who share one's
opinions, however people fear isolation 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
public, as it is typically measured.
Scholars have argued that both personal characteristics and
various cultures among different groups will have influences on whether a
person will willingly speak out. If one person "has a positive
self-concept and lacks a sense of shame, that person will speak out
regardless of how she or he perceives the climate of public opinion." Another influence critics give for people choosing not to speak out
against public opinion is culture. Some cultures are more
individualistic, which would support more of an individual's own
opinion, while collectivist cultures support the overall group's opinion
and needs. Gender can be also considered as a cultural factor. In some
cultures, women's "perception of language, not public opinion, forces
them to remain quiet." Scheufele & Moy, further assert that certain conflict styles and
cultural indicators should be used to understand these differences.
The nature of issues will influence the dynamic processes of the spiral of silence. Yeric and Todd present three issues type, including enduring issues
that will be discussed by the public for a long time; emerging issues
that are new to the public but have the potential to become enduring
issues; and the transitory issues, which don't stay in the public
consciousness for very long but come up from time to time. The research suggests that issues difference affects people's
willingness to express. Facebook users are more likely to post their
real thoughts on emerging issues such as gay marriage in an incongruent
opinion climate.
Another criticism of the spiral of silence research is that the
research designs do not observe the movement in the spiral over time.
Critics propose that Noelle-Neumann's emphasis on time in the formation of the spiral should reflect on the methodology as
well, and the dynamic nature of the spiral model should be acknowledged.
They argue that the spiral of silence theory involves a "time factor",
considering that the changes in public opinion eventually lead to change
in people's assessments of the public opinion. Also, according to Spilchal, the spiral of silence theory "ignores the
evidence of the historical development of public opinion, both in theory
and practice, through the extension of suffrage, organisation of
political propaganda groups, the establishment of pressure groups and
political parties, the eligibility of ever wider circles of public
officials and, eventually, the installation of several forms of direct
democracy."
Some scholars also provide understandings of the theory in the
contemporary society by pointing out that "it is not so much the actual
statistical majority that generates pressure for conformity as it is the
climate of opinion conveyed in large measure by the media." Under the great influence by the media coverage, the climate of opinion
"is not invariably an accurate reflection of the distribution of
opinions within the polity."
Further, Scheufele & Moy find problems in the operationalization of key terms, including
willingness to speak out. This construct should be measured in terms of
actually speaking out, not voting or other conceptually similar
constructs. Conformity experiments have no moral component, yet morality
is a key construct in the model. These conformity experiments,
particularly those by Asch, form part of the base of the theory.
Scholars question whether these conformity experiments are relevant to
the development of the spiral of silence.
False dilemmas and silence of consistency
While
the existence of groups with opinions other than those that are
supposed to be dominant in a society provide a space for some people to
express seemingly unpopular opinions, assumptions in such groups that
criticism of their underrepresented opinion equates to support for
society's mainstream views is a source of false dilemmas.
Some research indicates that such false dilemmas, especially when
there are inconsistencies both in mainstream views and in organized
opposition views, causes a spiral of silence that specifically silences
logically consistent third, fourth or higher number viewpoint criticism.
.jpg)
