CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING Volume 18, Number 4, 2015 ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0443
‘‘Was It Something I Said?’’ ‘‘No, It Was Something You Posted!’’ A Study of the Spiral of Silence Theory in Social Media Contexts Sherice Gearhart, PhD,1 and Weiwu Zhang, PhD 2
Abstract
New media technologies make it necessary for scholars to reassess mass communication theories developed among legacy media. One such theory is the spiral of silence theory originally proposed by Noelle-Neumann in the 1970s. Increasing diversity of media content, selectivity, social networking site (SNS) interactivity, and the potential for anonymity have posed various challenges to its theoretical assumptions. While application of the spiral of silence in SNS contexts has been theorized, its empirical testing is scarce. To fill this void, the Pew 2012 Search, Social Networks, and Politics survey is used to test the theory. Results reveal that encountering agreeable political content predicts speaking out, while encountering disagreeable postings stifles opinion expression, supporting the spiral of silence theory in the SNS environment. However, certain uses of SNSs and psychological factors demonstrate a liberating effect on opinion expression.
Introduction
T
he spiral of silence theory focuses on the social nature of human beings.1 Motivated by fear of social isolation, individuals constantly examine the climate of opinion. Individuals who perceive that the majority shares their opinions demonstrate a greater tendency to share opinions, while those in the minority conceal opinions. As a result, the perceived dominant view gains momentum, while alternatives become obscure, resulting in the spiraling effect. Empirical testing conducted primarily in offline contexts consistently offers significant but limited support.2 The advent of the Internet and social media has challenged the tenability of the theory. Greater freedom of self-expression, selectivity, anonymity, and social connection afforded in social media environments could render the spiral of silence theory unsustainable.3 It has been theorized that the spiral of silence can be applied to certain social networking sites (SNSs) such as Facebook.4 Designed primarily to strengthen existing relationships, Facebook’s public nature provides an opportunity to investigate this phenomenon because fear of isolation might arise from appearing unpopular in this network.5 To date, one study has tested the theory in an SNS setting.6 The results provided empirical support for the spiral of silence while assessing strategies for speaking out and remaining silent in SNS contexts. 1 2
This study fills a void by testing the theory using the Pew 2012 Search, Social Networks, and Politics survey. It contributes to the spiral of silence research by investigating the effects of the opinion climate, SNS use, and political activities on speaking out and remaining silent. Literature Review Spiral of silence theory
The spiral of silence theory examines how perceptions of public opinion affect opinion expression. Motivated by fear of isolation, individuals monitor the opinion climate concerning controversial issues.1 Those who share the perceived dominant opinion are likely to speak out, while the minority is silenced, beginning a spiraling process that establishes the prevailing opinion.1 Empirical work usually assesses willingness to express opinions or remain silent as the dependent variable. Recent tests have included strategic forms of opinion avoidance such as expressing ambivalence.7 Including such strategies marks a new approach to empirical tests. Spiral of silence online
The Internet affords individuals access to diverse media content, autonomy, and selectivity, making the theory difficult to sustain.4 For instance, anonymity may remove social
School of Communication, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska. Department of Public Relations, College of Media and Communication, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.
208
WAS IT SOMETHING I SAID?
restraints on expressing unpopular opinions.8 However, support for online silencing effects has been identified. For example, chatroom postings during a 1996 U.S. presidential debate increased for the winning candidate and decreased for the losing candidate.9 Using experimental chatrooms, minority opinion holders were perceived to be moderate and concealed opinions.10 Comparison of willingness to participate in online and face-to-face focus groups found greater willingness to participate in online anonymous discussions.11 Additional support was seen as respondents were less willing to post comments in incongruent opinion climates.12 In sum, support for the spiral of silence phenomenon in online settings has been acknowledged. The next step requires considering contextual differences among online contexts.
209
Opinion avoidance strategies are also included7 but are more difficult to identify because responding to social prompts in SNSs is easily avoided. Identified silencing strategies include ignoring political comments expressing disagreeable opinions and refraining from posting content due to fear of offending someone. Research6 suggests that time spent on SNSs makes people less likely to read comments without commenting. Therefore, the following is proposed: H3: SNS use will be negatively related to silencing.
Individuals who refrain from sharing points of view in person also refrain from posting social media comments on important issues.18 Therefore, the following is hypothesized:
SNSs and the spiral of silence
Certain semi-public SNSs are amenable for empirical tests. For example, Facebook connections are based on existing real-world networks, and users communicate by posting and responding to content seen publically by connections.13 Empirical tests in SNSs require re-conceptualizing focal variables used in offline settings (i.e., opinion climate, speaking out, remaining silent). As in offline tests, the opinion climate is essential. This study considers the frequency of encountering agreeable and disagreeable SNS content as one’s opinion climate. Similarly, opinion expression and suppression in SNSs must be considered. Most tests conceptualize outcomes as either opinion expression or silence.14,15 Scholars have explored alternatives.7,16 A rare empirical test in an SNS setting proposed equivalent strategies such as posting opinions and reading posts without commenting.6 Results showed traditional predictors, such as self-censorship and issue importance, predicted engagement in modified SNS response strategies. Therefore, alternative outcomes can allow for examination of the phenomenon in SNS contexts. Using Pew data,17 response strategies were identified. Speaking out strategies include liking posted political content posting positive comments on content, and responding to disagreeable posts. Research6 suggests that more time spent on SNSs emboldens people to post comments. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: H1: SNS use will be positively related to speaking out.
Previous work found public debate about social issues was silenced on social media more than in face-to-face contexts.18 Therefore, the following is hypothesized: H2: Negative reactions to political posts will be negatively related to speaking out.
H4: Negative reactions to political posts will be positively related to silencing.
The following research questions are also posed: RQ5: How is the importance of SNSs for politics related to silencing? RQ6: How is the amount of SNS political content related to silencing? RQ7: How is the frequency of agreement with political content related to silencing? RQ8: How is the frequency of disagreement with political content related to silencing? Method
Data were taken from the Pew 2012 Search, Social Networks, and Politics survey centered on SNS political discussion.19 A nationwide random-digit dialed survey was conducted from January 20 to February 19, 2012. Adults (N = 2,353) were contacted via landline (n = 1,352) or cellular (n = 901). Response rates were 11.1% for landline and 10.8% for cellular. Weights were corrected for data biases. Dependent variables
Adaptations of speaking out and remaining silent in SNSs were used. Speaking out was measured with three strategies (liking political posts, posting positive comments, and responding to disagreeable posts). Silence was measured with two strategies (ignoring disagreeable posts and refraining from posting). Liking political posts. Respondents were asked if they ever clicked the ‘‘like’’ button in response to others’ political posts. This behavior was reported by 47.4%, and responses were dummy coded (0 = ‘‘no,’’ 1 = ‘‘yes’’).
The following research questions are also proposed: RQ1: How is the importance of SNSs for politics related to speaking out? RQ2: How is the amount of SNS political content related to speaking out? RQ3: How is the frequency of agreement with political content related to speaking out? RQ4: How is the frequency of disagreement with political content related to speaking out?
Posting positive comments. Users were asked if they ever posted a positive response to political posts. Behavior engagement was reported by 38.6%, and responses were dummy coded (0 = ‘‘no,’’ 1 = ‘‘yes’’). Responding to disagreeable posts. Respondents were asked if they responded to friend-made political postings with which they disagreed. This was reported by 26.9%, and responses were dummy coded (0 = ‘‘no,’’ 1 = ‘‘yes’’).
210 Ignoring disagreeable posts. Respondents were asked if they ignore disagreeable friend-made political postings. Among participants, 66.5% reported this behavior. Responses were dummy coded (0 = ‘‘no,’’ 1 = ‘‘yes’’). Refraining from posting. Respondents were asked whether they decided against posting political content that may risk offending others. This activity was reported by 22.5% of respondents and was dummy coded (0 = ‘‘no,’’ 1 = ‘‘yes’’). Independent variables
Predictors included general SNS use, user and friend posting habits, frequency of agreement and disagreement with political content, past negative experiences on SNSs, and demographics served as controls. Frequency of general SNS use. Participants were asked how often respondents visited SNSs daily (1 = ‘‘less often’’ to 6 = ‘‘several times a day’’; M = 4.47, SD = 1.56). Importance of SNSs for politics. A four-point scale (1 = ‘‘not at all important,’’ 4 = ‘‘very important’’) was used to ask participants about the importance of SNSs for (a) keeping up with politics, (b) debating/discussing political issues, (c) finding others who shared political views, and (d) recruiting people to get involved with political issues. An index was formed (M = 1.90, SD = 0.85, a = 0.87). Posted political content. Respondents were asked how much of their own and their friends’ recently posted content was related to politics or the 2012 elections (1 = ‘‘all or almost all of it’’ to 5 = ‘‘none at all’’). The scale was reverse coded for self-posted (M = 1.60, SD = 0.96) and friend-posted content (M = 2.27, SD = 0.98). Frequency of agreement. On a 4-point scale (1 = ‘‘never’’ to 4 = ‘‘always or almost always’’), this item measured how frequently respondents encountered agreeable political posts (M = 2.24, SD = 0.72). Frequency of disagreement. Using the scale above, this item examined how often respondents encountered disagreeable political posts (M = 2.14, SD = 0.65). Receiving negative reactions. This item asked if respondents had ever received a strong negative reaction to postings. This behavior was reported among 63.3% of respondents and were dummy coded (0 = ‘‘no,’’ 1 = ‘‘yes’’). Demographics. Respondents consisted of 51.3% females with an average age of 46 years (SD = 18.26) and education beyond high school (SD = 1.71). The majority reported race as white (76.2%), which was dummy coded (0 = ‘‘other,’’ 1 = ‘‘white’’). Respondents were moderately conservative (SD = 1.03) with an average income ranging from $30,000 to $50,000 (SD = 2.46). Results
H1 predicted a positive relationship between SNS use and speaking out. Frequent SNS use increased the likelihood of ‘‘liking’’ political posts (b = 0.20, p < 0.001), posting positive
GEARHART AND ZHANG
comments (b = 0.17, p < 0.001), and responding to disagreeable posts (b = 0.09, p = .002). Therefore, H1 was supported. RQ1 explored the relationship between importance of SNSs for politics and speaking out. Results showed individuals attaching more importance to SNSs for politics were likely to ‘‘like’’ political content (b = 0.07, p = 0.03) and respond to disagreeable posts (b = 0.19, p < 0.001). However, importance did not influence posting positive comments. RQ2 investigated the relationship between the amount of political content posted and speaking out. The more political content individuals posted, the more likely they would post positive comments (b = 0.12, p < 0.001) and respond to disagreeable posts (b = 0.23, p < 0.001). Frequently encountering friends’ political posts enhanced the likelihood of posting positive responses (b = 0.07, p = 0.03). RQ3 examined linkages between frequency of agreement and speaking out. Frequent agreement with posted political opinions increased the likelihood of ‘‘liking’’ posts (b = 0.11, p < 0.001) and posting comments (b = 0.07, p = 0.03). Conversely, those who frequently agreed with content were unlikely to respond to disagreeable posts (b = - 0.14, p < 0.001). RQ4 explored the relationship between frequency of disagreement and speaking out. Frequent disagreement was related to posting positive comments on agreeable content (b = 0.09, p = 0.004). However, this was not related to speaking out. H2 predicted a negative relationship between receiving negative reactions and speaking out. Receiving negative reactions enhanced the likelihood of ‘‘liking’’ posts (b = 0.09, p = 0.004) and posting positive comments (b = 0.08, p = 0.005), opposing the hypothesis. However, receiving negative reactions was negatively related to responding to disagreeable posts (b = - 0.17, p < 0.001). Therefore, limited support for H2 was identified (see Table 1). H3 predicted a negative relationship between general SNS use and silencing. Results showed SNS use exerted a negative influence on ignoring disagreeable posts (b = - 0.12, p < 0.001), but not on refraining from posting. Therefore, H3 was partially supported. RQ5 investigated the relationship between importance of SNSs for politics and silencing. Those placing high importance on SNSs for politics were less likely to ignore disagreeable posts (b = - 0.09, p = 0.005). However, SNS importance did not influence users’ tendency to refrain from posting. RQ6 examined the relationship between posting political content and silencing. Frequent political content posters were less likely to ignore disagreeable posts (b = - 0.24, p < 0.001). However, self-posted political content was not related to refraining. It was also revealed that friend-posted political content did not predict silence. RQ7 explored if frequency of agreement was related to silencing. Results found that frequent agreement enhanced the likelihood that users would ignore disagreeable posts (b = 0.12, p < 0.001) and refrain from posting content (b = 0.07, p = 0.04). RQ8 investigated the relationship between frequency of disagreement and silencing. Frequent disagreement positively predicted refraining from posting (b = 0.10, p = 0.001), but not ignoring disagreeable posts. H4 predicted a positive relationship between receiving negative reactions and silencing. Individuals who received a negative reaction were more likely to refrain from posting content (b = 0.08, p = 0.01). However, receiving negative
WAS IT SOMETHING I SAID?
211
Table 1. Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Speaking Out Strategies Liking political posts
Table 2. Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Silencing Strategies
Respond to Posting posts one positive disagrees with comments
Demographics Sex (female) 0.06 0.01 0.03 Age - 0.05 - 0.05 0.05 Education 0.13*** 0.15*** - 0.10** Race (Caucasian) 0.00 - 0.08** - 0.20*** Ideology (liberal) 0.10** 0.10** 0.09** Income 0.14*** 0.09** 0.03 2 R (%) 8.9%*** 6.9%*** 7.3%*** SNS uses and content posting Freq. of SNS use 0.20*** 0.17*** 0.09** Importance of SNS 0.07** 0.05 0.19*** for politics Self-posted political - 0.00 0.12*** 0.23*** content Friend-posted - 0.04 0.07* - 0.03 political content Incremental R2 (%) 5.0%*** 8.0%*** 12.6%*** Opinion climate Freq. of agreement 0.11*** 0.07* - 0.14*** Freq. of disagreement 0.03 0.09** 0.01 Received negative 0.09** 0.08** - 0.17*** reaction Incremental R2 (%) 1.6%*** 1.4%** 5.1%*** 15.5% 16.3% 24.9% Total R2 (%) Note: The beta weights are final standardized regression coefficients. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
reactions was negatively related to ignoring disagreeable postings (b = - 0.20, p < 0.001). Therefore, H4 was partially supported (see Table 2). Discussion
The purpose of this study was to test the tenability of the spiral of silence theory in an SNS context. Overall, findings show that many aspects of the theory still hold up and some aspects require modification in an SNS context. One major contribution of this study is the identification of SNS-specific response strategies (i.e., speaking out and remaining silent) that are equivalent to strategies utilized in offline tests of the spiral of silence theory. Similar to the proposed use of opinion expression avoidance strategies in face-to-face settings,7 results provide relevant new forms of opinion expression and avoidance in SNS contexts. Concerning the opinion climate, results are in line with the spiral of silence theory; that is, congruent opinion climates encourage speaking out, while incongruent opinion climates foster silence. The strongest evidence is that SNS users who have received negative reactions to political postings are less likely to respond to disagreeable posts and are more likely to refrain from posting their own content due to fear of others’ reactions. More simply, individuals who have received a strong negative reaction to their politically related posts are
Demographics Sex (female) Age Education Race (Caucasian) Ideology (liberal) Income R2 (%) SNS uses and content posting Freq. of SNS use Importance of SNS for politics Self-posted political content Friend-posted political content Incremental R2 (%) Opinion climate Freq. of agreement Freq. of disagreement Received negative reaction Incremental R2 (%) Total R2 (%)
Ignore political posts one disagrees with
Refrain from posting
- 0.04 - 0.09** 0.13*** 0.19*** - 0.03 - 0.03 6.2%***
0.03 - 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.07* 0.05 2.7%***
- 0.12*** - 0.09**
- 0.03 - 0.02
- 0.24*** 0.03
- 0.04 0.05
9.4%*** 0.12*** - 0.01 - 0.20*** 5.5%*** 21.0%
0.3% 0.07* 0.10** 0.08** 1.7%*** 4.7%
Note: The beta weights are final standardized regression coefficients. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
likely to censor themselves, exemplifying the spiral of silence effect. Users who reported receiving negative feedback in SNSs were also more likely to ‘‘like’’ and post positive affirmations on agreeable political postings. This means users are more likely to interact with like-minded others. This is particularly troubling because limiting interaction with likeminded others drives attitude extremity,20 demonstrating a potential ‘‘dark side’’ of social media, which boosts solidarity among homogeneous groups. Frequently encountering agreeable postings increased the tendency to click the ‘‘like’’ button and post positive affirmations. Thus, online and offline opinion climates induce similar behaviors. Additionally, users regularly encountering like-minded information are unwilling to publically dispute posts. Silence is further demonstrated as users refrain from posting due to fear of others’ reactions and tend to ignore incongruent content. Findings support the impression management contention of the theory; that is, because people want to appear favorable, they actively choose not to post original content or to post responses.21 On the contrary, findings also demonstrate influences of SNS use and other factors in liberating opinion expression. General SNS use is positively related to speaking out and negatively related to ignoring posts. This supports research finding that well-versed SNS users value freedom of expression and place lower value on privacy.22 Additionally, users placing high importance on SNSs for political activities are unlikely to ignore disagreeable posts and are more likely
212
to respond to such posts. Therefore, SNS uses and the value placed on them may encourage opinion expression, working against the theory. Results mirror offline research that has found that politically interested individuals are more willing to opine.23 Frequent political posters are more likely to post agreeable and disagreeable content, suggesting politically involved individuals are likely to speak out. Furthermore, they are less likely to ignore disagreeable opinions. Sharing content on SNSs signals opinion intensity, a known predictor of speaking out.23–26 Therefore, both general and specific SNS use serve as contingent conditions in online environments. User-posted content serves as both media and interpersonal communication. Frequently encountering like-minded political posts enhances chances of offering positive affirmation. Therefore, results mirror previous offline tests finding interpersonal political discussion predicts speaking out.27 Overall, results show that the spiral of silence theory is alive and well in certain online environments such as Facebook given its social and quasi-public nature. Varying SNS uses and encountered opinion climates produce differential results. In other words, opinion expression in SNSs may exert dual silencing and liberating effects. Social media is a mass medium based upon interpersonal communication, changing the way mass media is conceptualized. Although many findings are in line with the basic theoretical contention, changes resulting from new technology challenge researchers to consider circumstances revolving around media use as a variable central to the effects process.4 This study represents an initial attempt to investigate the role of SNS uses and opinion climates in the dynamics of the theory. Future tests should examine psychological attributes, such as willingness to self-censor, known to be influential in the spiral of silence process. Additionally, identified contingent conditions should be examined to identify behavioral factors that might attenuate the spiral of silence effect. Acknowledgments
Data were taken from the Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project February 2012 survey Search, Social Networks, and Politics. Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist. References
1. Noelle-Neumann E. The spiral of silence: a theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication 1974; 24:43–51. 2. Glynn CJ, Hayes AF, Shanahan J. Perceived support for one’s opinions and willingness to speak out: a meta-analysis of survey studies on the ‘‘spiral of silence.’’ Public Opinion Quarterly 1997; 61:452–463. 3. Moy P, Hussain MM. (2014) Media and public opinion in a fragmented society. In Donsbach W, Salmon CT, Tsfati Y, eds. The spiral of silence: new perspectives on communication and public opinion. New York: Routledge, pp. 92–100. 4. Metzger MJ. (2009) The study of media effects in the era of Internet communication. In Nabi RL, Oliver MB, eds. The Sage handbook of media processes and effects. Los Angeles, CA: Sage, pp. 561–576.
GEARHART AND ZHANG
5. boyd d, Ellison N. Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2007; 13:210–230. 6. Gearhart S. Zhang W. Gay bullying and online opinion expression: testing spiral of silence in the social media environment. Social Science Computer Review 2014; 32:18–36. 7. Hayes A. Exploring the forms of self-censorship: on the spiral of silence and the use of opinion expression avoidance strategies. Journal of Communication 2007; 57:785–802. 8. Chaffee S, Metzger MJ. The end of mass communication? Mass Communication & Society 2001; 4:365–379. 9. Wanta W, Dimitrova D. (2000) Chatrooms and the spiral of silence: an examination of online discussions during the final 1996 U.S. presidential debate. Paper presented at the International Communication Association, Acapulco, Mexico. 10. McDevitt M, Kiousis S, Wahl-Jorgensen K. Spiral of moderation: opinion expression in computer-mediated communication. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2003; 15:454–470. 11. Ho SS. McLeod DM. Social-psychological influences on opinion expression in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Communication Research 2008; 35:190–207. 12. Yun GW, Park, S-Y. Selective posting willingness to post a message online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2011; 16:201–227. 13. de Zuniga HG, Jung N, Valenzuela S. Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2012; 17:319–336. 14. Bassili JN. The minority slowness effect: subtle inhibitions in the expression of views not shared by others. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 2003; 84:261–276. 15. Huge ME, Glynn CJ. Hesitation blues: does minority opinion status lead to delayed responses? Communication Research 2012; 40:287–307. 16. Neuwirth K, Fredrick E, Mayo C. The spiral of silence and fear of isolation. Journal of Communication 2007; 57:450–468. 17. Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2012) Search, social networks, and politics. http://www.pewinternet.org/ datasets/february-2012-search-social-networks-and-politics/ (accessed Oct. 8, 2012). 18. Hampton KN, Rainie L, Lu W, et al. (2014) Social media and the ‘‘spiral of silence.’’ www.pewinternet.org/files/2014/ 08/PI_Social-networks-and-debate_082614.pdf (accessed Nov. 26, 2014). 19. Rainie L, Smith A. (2012) Social networking sites and politics. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. 20. Binder AR, Dalrymple KE, Brossard D, et al. The soul of a polarized democracy: testing theoretical linkages between talk and attitude extremity during the 2004 presidential election. Communication Research 2009; 36:315–340. 21. Noelle-Neumann E. Turbulences in the climate of opinion: methodological applications of the spiral of silence theory. Public Opinion Quarterly 1977; 41:143–158. 22. Swigger N. The online citizen: is social media changing citizens’ beliefs about democratic values? Political Behavior 2013; 35:589–603. 23. Baldassare M, Katz C. Measures of attitude strength as predictors of willingness to speak to the media. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 1996; 73:147–158. 24. Glynn CF, Park E. Reference groups, opinion intensity, and public opinion expression. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 1997; 9:213–232.
WAS IT SOMETHING I SAID?
25. Moy P, Domke D, Stamm D. The spiral of silence and public opinion on affirmative action. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 2001; 8:7–25. 26. Salmon CT, Neuwirth K. Perceptions of opinion ‘‘climates’’ and willingness to discuss the issue of abortion. Journalism Quarterly 1990; 67:567–577. 27. Neuwirth K. Testing the spiral of silence model: the case of Mexico. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2000; 12:138–159.
213
Address correspondence to: Dr. Sherice Gearhart School of Communication University of Nebraska at Omaha 6001 Dodge Street Omaha, NE 68182 E-mail: [email protected]
‘‘Was It Something I Said?’’ ‘‘No, It Was Something You Posted!’’ A Study of the Spiral of Silence Theory in Social Media Contexts Sherice Gearhart, PhD,1 and Weiwu Zhang, PhD 2
Abstract
New media technologies make it necessary for scholars to reassess mass communication theories developed among legacy media. One such theory is the spiral of silence theory originally proposed by Noelle-Neumann in the 1970s. Increasing diversity of media content, selectivity, social networking site (SNS) interactivity, and the potential for anonymity have posed various challenges to its theoretical assumptions. While application of the spiral of silence in SNS contexts has been theorized, its empirical testing is scarce. To fill this void, the Pew 2012 Search, Social Networks, and Politics survey is used to test the theory. Results reveal that encountering agreeable political content predicts speaking out, while encountering disagreeable postings stifles opinion expression, supporting the spiral of silence theory in the SNS environment. However, certain uses of SNSs and psychological factors demonstrate a liberating effect on opinion expression.
Introduction
T
he spiral of silence theory focuses on the social nature of human beings.1 Motivated by fear of social isolation, individuals constantly examine the climate of opinion. Individuals who perceive that the majority shares their opinions demonstrate a greater tendency to share opinions, while those in the minority conceal opinions. As a result, the perceived dominant view gains momentum, while alternatives become obscure, resulting in the spiraling effect. Empirical testing conducted primarily in offline contexts consistently offers significant but limited support.2 The advent of the Internet and social media has challenged the tenability of the theory. Greater freedom of self-expression, selectivity, anonymity, and social connection afforded in social media environments could render the spiral of silence theory unsustainable.3 It has been theorized that the spiral of silence can be applied to certain social networking sites (SNSs) such as Facebook.4 Designed primarily to strengthen existing relationships, Facebook’s public nature provides an opportunity to investigate this phenomenon because fear of isolation might arise from appearing unpopular in this network.5 To date, one study has tested the theory in an SNS setting.6 The results provided empirical support for the spiral of silence while assessing strategies for speaking out and remaining silent in SNS contexts. 1 2
This study fills a void by testing the theory using the Pew 2012 Search, Social Networks, and Politics survey. It contributes to the spiral of silence research by investigating the effects of the opinion climate, SNS use, and political activities on speaking out and remaining silent. Literature Review Spiral of silence theory
The spiral of silence theory examines how perceptions of public opinion affect opinion expression. Motivated by fear of isolation, individuals monitor the opinion climate concerning controversial issues.1 Those who share the perceived dominant opinion are likely to speak out, while the minority is silenced, beginning a spiraling process that establishes the prevailing opinion.1 Empirical work usually assesses willingness to express opinions or remain silent as the dependent variable. Recent tests have included strategic forms of opinion avoidance such as expressing ambivalence.7 Including such strategies marks a new approach to empirical tests. Spiral of silence online
The Internet affords individuals access to diverse media content, autonomy, and selectivity, making the theory difficult to sustain.4 For instance, anonymity may remove social
School of Communication, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska. Department of Public Relations, College of Media and Communication, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.
208
WAS IT SOMETHING I SAID?
restraints on expressing unpopular opinions.8 However, support for online silencing effects has been identified. For example, chatroom postings during a 1996 U.S. presidential debate increased for the winning candidate and decreased for the losing candidate.9 Using experimental chatrooms, minority opinion holders were perceived to be moderate and concealed opinions.10 Comparison of willingness to participate in online and face-to-face focus groups found greater willingness to participate in online anonymous discussions.11 Additional support was seen as respondents were less willing to post comments in incongruent opinion climates.12 In sum, support for the spiral of silence phenomenon in online settings has been acknowledged. The next step requires considering contextual differences among online contexts.
209
Opinion avoidance strategies are also included7 but are more difficult to identify because responding to social prompts in SNSs is easily avoided. Identified silencing strategies include ignoring political comments expressing disagreeable opinions and refraining from posting content due to fear of offending someone. Research6 suggests that time spent on SNSs makes people less likely to read comments without commenting. Therefore, the following is proposed: H3: SNS use will be negatively related to silencing.
Individuals who refrain from sharing points of view in person also refrain from posting social media comments on important issues.18 Therefore, the following is hypothesized:
SNSs and the spiral of silence
Certain semi-public SNSs are amenable for empirical tests. For example, Facebook connections are based on existing real-world networks, and users communicate by posting and responding to content seen publically by connections.13 Empirical tests in SNSs require re-conceptualizing focal variables used in offline settings (i.e., opinion climate, speaking out, remaining silent). As in offline tests, the opinion climate is essential. This study considers the frequency of encountering agreeable and disagreeable SNS content as one’s opinion climate. Similarly, opinion expression and suppression in SNSs must be considered. Most tests conceptualize outcomes as either opinion expression or silence.14,15 Scholars have explored alternatives.7,16 A rare empirical test in an SNS setting proposed equivalent strategies such as posting opinions and reading posts without commenting.6 Results showed traditional predictors, such as self-censorship and issue importance, predicted engagement in modified SNS response strategies. Therefore, alternative outcomes can allow for examination of the phenomenon in SNS contexts. Using Pew data,17 response strategies were identified. Speaking out strategies include liking posted political content posting positive comments on content, and responding to disagreeable posts. Research6 suggests that more time spent on SNSs emboldens people to post comments. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: H1: SNS use will be positively related to speaking out.
Previous work found public debate about social issues was silenced on social media more than in face-to-face contexts.18 Therefore, the following is hypothesized: H2: Negative reactions to political posts will be negatively related to speaking out.
H4: Negative reactions to political posts will be positively related to silencing.
The following research questions are also posed: RQ5: How is the importance of SNSs for politics related to silencing? RQ6: How is the amount of SNS political content related to silencing? RQ7: How is the frequency of agreement with political content related to silencing? RQ8: How is the frequency of disagreement with political content related to silencing? Method
Data were taken from the Pew 2012 Search, Social Networks, and Politics survey centered on SNS political discussion.19 A nationwide random-digit dialed survey was conducted from January 20 to February 19, 2012. Adults (N = 2,353) were contacted via landline (n = 1,352) or cellular (n = 901). Response rates were 11.1% for landline and 10.8% for cellular. Weights were corrected for data biases. Dependent variables
Adaptations of speaking out and remaining silent in SNSs were used. Speaking out was measured with three strategies (liking political posts, posting positive comments, and responding to disagreeable posts). Silence was measured with two strategies (ignoring disagreeable posts and refraining from posting). Liking political posts. Respondents were asked if they ever clicked the ‘‘like’’ button in response to others’ political posts. This behavior was reported by 47.4%, and responses were dummy coded (0 = ‘‘no,’’ 1 = ‘‘yes’’).
The following research questions are also proposed: RQ1: How is the importance of SNSs for politics related to speaking out? RQ2: How is the amount of SNS political content related to speaking out? RQ3: How is the frequency of agreement with political content related to speaking out? RQ4: How is the frequency of disagreement with political content related to speaking out?
Posting positive comments. Users were asked if they ever posted a positive response to political posts. Behavior engagement was reported by 38.6%, and responses were dummy coded (0 = ‘‘no,’’ 1 = ‘‘yes’’). Responding to disagreeable posts. Respondents were asked if they responded to friend-made political postings with which they disagreed. This was reported by 26.9%, and responses were dummy coded (0 = ‘‘no,’’ 1 = ‘‘yes’’).
210 Ignoring disagreeable posts. Respondents were asked if they ignore disagreeable friend-made political postings. Among participants, 66.5% reported this behavior. Responses were dummy coded (0 = ‘‘no,’’ 1 = ‘‘yes’’). Refraining from posting. Respondents were asked whether they decided against posting political content that may risk offending others. This activity was reported by 22.5% of respondents and was dummy coded (0 = ‘‘no,’’ 1 = ‘‘yes’’). Independent variables
Predictors included general SNS use, user and friend posting habits, frequency of agreement and disagreement with political content, past negative experiences on SNSs, and demographics served as controls. Frequency of general SNS use. Participants were asked how often respondents visited SNSs daily (1 = ‘‘less often’’ to 6 = ‘‘several times a day’’; M = 4.47, SD = 1.56). Importance of SNSs for politics. A four-point scale (1 = ‘‘not at all important,’’ 4 = ‘‘very important’’) was used to ask participants about the importance of SNSs for (a) keeping up with politics, (b) debating/discussing political issues, (c) finding others who shared political views, and (d) recruiting people to get involved with political issues. An index was formed (M = 1.90, SD = 0.85, a = 0.87). Posted political content. Respondents were asked how much of their own and their friends’ recently posted content was related to politics or the 2012 elections (1 = ‘‘all or almost all of it’’ to 5 = ‘‘none at all’’). The scale was reverse coded for self-posted (M = 1.60, SD = 0.96) and friend-posted content (M = 2.27, SD = 0.98). Frequency of agreement. On a 4-point scale (1 = ‘‘never’’ to 4 = ‘‘always or almost always’’), this item measured how frequently respondents encountered agreeable political posts (M = 2.24, SD = 0.72). Frequency of disagreement. Using the scale above, this item examined how often respondents encountered disagreeable political posts (M = 2.14, SD = 0.65). Receiving negative reactions. This item asked if respondents had ever received a strong negative reaction to postings. This behavior was reported among 63.3% of respondents and were dummy coded (0 = ‘‘no,’’ 1 = ‘‘yes’’). Demographics. Respondents consisted of 51.3% females with an average age of 46 years (SD = 18.26) and education beyond high school (SD = 1.71). The majority reported race as white (76.2%), which was dummy coded (0 = ‘‘other,’’ 1 = ‘‘white’’). Respondents were moderately conservative (SD = 1.03) with an average income ranging from $30,000 to $50,000 (SD = 2.46). Results
H1 predicted a positive relationship between SNS use and speaking out. Frequent SNS use increased the likelihood of ‘‘liking’’ political posts (b = 0.20, p < 0.001), posting positive
GEARHART AND ZHANG
comments (b = 0.17, p < 0.001), and responding to disagreeable posts (b = 0.09, p = .002). Therefore, H1 was supported. RQ1 explored the relationship between importance of SNSs for politics and speaking out. Results showed individuals attaching more importance to SNSs for politics were likely to ‘‘like’’ political content (b = 0.07, p = 0.03) and respond to disagreeable posts (b = 0.19, p < 0.001). However, importance did not influence posting positive comments. RQ2 investigated the relationship between the amount of political content posted and speaking out. The more political content individuals posted, the more likely they would post positive comments (b = 0.12, p < 0.001) and respond to disagreeable posts (b = 0.23, p < 0.001). Frequently encountering friends’ political posts enhanced the likelihood of posting positive responses (b = 0.07, p = 0.03). RQ3 examined linkages between frequency of agreement and speaking out. Frequent agreement with posted political opinions increased the likelihood of ‘‘liking’’ posts (b = 0.11, p < 0.001) and posting comments (b = 0.07, p = 0.03). Conversely, those who frequently agreed with content were unlikely to respond to disagreeable posts (b = - 0.14, p < 0.001). RQ4 explored the relationship between frequency of disagreement and speaking out. Frequent disagreement was related to posting positive comments on agreeable content (b = 0.09, p = 0.004). However, this was not related to speaking out. H2 predicted a negative relationship between receiving negative reactions and speaking out. Receiving negative reactions enhanced the likelihood of ‘‘liking’’ posts (b = 0.09, p = 0.004) and posting positive comments (b = 0.08, p = 0.005), opposing the hypothesis. However, receiving negative reactions was negatively related to responding to disagreeable posts (b = - 0.17, p < 0.001). Therefore, limited support for H2 was identified (see Table 1). H3 predicted a negative relationship between general SNS use and silencing. Results showed SNS use exerted a negative influence on ignoring disagreeable posts (b = - 0.12, p < 0.001), but not on refraining from posting. Therefore, H3 was partially supported. RQ5 investigated the relationship between importance of SNSs for politics and silencing. Those placing high importance on SNSs for politics were less likely to ignore disagreeable posts (b = - 0.09, p = 0.005). However, SNS importance did not influence users’ tendency to refrain from posting. RQ6 examined the relationship between posting political content and silencing. Frequent political content posters were less likely to ignore disagreeable posts (b = - 0.24, p < 0.001). However, self-posted political content was not related to refraining. It was also revealed that friend-posted political content did not predict silence. RQ7 explored if frequency of agreement was related to silencing. Results found that frequent agreement enhanced the likelihood that users would ignore disagreeable posts (b = 0.12, p < 0.001) and refrain from posting content (b = 0.07, p = 0.04). RQ8 investigated the relationship between frequency of disagreement and silencing. Frequent disagreement positively predicted refraining from posting (b = 0.10, p = 0.001), but not ignoring disagreeable posts. H4 predicted a positive relationship between receiving negative reactions and silencing. Individuals who received a negative reaction were more likely to refrain from posting content (b = 0.08, p = 0.01). However, receiving negative
WAS IT SOMETHING I SAID?
211
Table 1. Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Speaking Out Strategies Liking political posts
Table 2. Hierarchical Regression Analyses Predicting Silencing Strategies
Respond to Posting posts one positive disagrees with comments
Demographics Sex (female) 0.06 0.01 0.03 Age - 0.05 - 0.05 0.05 Education 0.13*** 0.15*** - 0.10** Race (Caucasian) 0.00 - 0.08** - 0.20*** Ideology (liberal) 0.10** 0.10** 0.09** Income 0.14*** 0.09** 0.03 2 R (%) 8.9%*** 6.9%*** 7.3%*** SNS uses and content posting Freq. of SNS use 0.20*** 0.17*** 0.09** Importance of SNS 0.07** 0.05 0.19*** for politics Self-posted political - 0.00 0.12*** 0.23*** content Friend-posted - 0.04 0.07* - 0.03 political content Incremental R2 (%) 5.0%*** 8.0%*** 12.6%*** Opinion climate Freq. of agreement 0.11*** 0.07* - 0.14*** Freq. of disagreement 0.03 0.09** 0.01 Received negative 0.09** 0.08** - 0.17*** reaction Incremental R2 (%) 1.6%*** 1.4%** 5.1%*** 15.5% 16.3% 24.9% Total R2 (%) Note: The beta weights are final standardized regression coefficients. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
reactions was negatively related to ignoring disagreeable postings (b = - 0.20, p < 0.001). Therefore, H4 was partially supported (see Table 2). Discussion
The purpose of this study was to test the tenability of the spiral of silence theory in an SNS context. Overall, findings show that many aspects of the theory still hold up and some aspects require modification in an SNS context. One major contribution of this study is the identification of SNS-specific response strategies (i.e., speaking out and remaining silent) that are equivalent to strategies utilized in offline tests of the spiral of silence theory. Similar to the proposed use of opinion expression avoidance strategies in face-to-face settings,7 results provide relevant new forms of opinion expression and avoidance in SNS contexts. Concerning the opinion climate, results are in line with the spiral of silence theory; that is, congruent opinion climates encourage speaking out, while incongruent opinion climates foster silence. The strongest evidence is that SNS users who have received negative reactions to political postings are less likely to respond to disagreeable posts and are more likely to refrain from posting their own content due to fear of others’ reactions. More simply, individuals who have received a strong negative reaction to their politically related posts are
Demographics Sex (female) Age Education Race (Caucasian) Ideology (liberal) Income R2 (%) SNS uses and content posting Freq. of SNS use Importance of SNS for politics Self-posted political content Friend-posted political content Incremental R2 (%) Opinion climate Freq. of agreement Freq. of disagreement Received negative reaction Incremental R2 (%) Total R2 (%)
Ignore political posts one disagrees with
Refrain from posting
- 0.04 - 0.09** 0.13*** 0.19*** - 0.03 - 0.03 6.2%***
0.03 - 0.06 0.03 0.05 0.07* 0.05 2.7%***
- 0.12*** - 0.09**
- 0.03 - 0.02
- 0.24*** 0.03
- 0.04 0.05
9.4%*** 0.12*** - 0.01 - 0.20*** 5.5%*** 21.0%
0.3% 0.07* 0.10** 0.08** 1.7%*** 4.7%
Note: The beta weights are final standardized regression coefficients. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
likely to censor themselves, exemplifying the spiral of silence effect. Users who reported receiving negative feedback in SNSs were also more likely to ‘‘like’’ and post positive affirmations on agreeable political postings. This means users are more likely to interact with like-minded others. This is particularly troubling because limiting interaction with likeminded others drives attitude extremity,20 demonstrating a potential ‘‘dark side’’ of social media, which boosts solidarity among homogeneous groups. Frequently encountering agreeable postings increased the tendency to click the ‘‘like’’ button and post positive affirmations. Thus, online and offline opinion climates induce similar behaviors. Additionally, users regularly encountering like-minded information are unwilling to publically dispute posts. Silence is further demonstrated as users refrain from posting due to fear of others’ reactions and tend to ignore incongruent content. Findings support the impression management contention of the theory; that is, because people want to appear favorable, they actively choose not to post original content or to post responses.21 On the contrary, findings also demonstrate influences of SNS use and other factors in liberating opinion expression. General SNS use is positively related to speaking out and negatively related to ignoring posts. This supports research finding that well-versed SNS users value freedom of expression and place lower value on privacy.22 Additionally, users placing high importance on SNSs for political activities are unlikely to ignore disagreeable posts and are more likely
212
to respond to such posts. Therefore, SNS uses and the value placed on them may encourage opinion expression, working against the theory. Results mirror offline research that has found that politically interested individuals are more willing to opine.23 Frequent political posters are more likely to post agreeable and disagreeable content, suggesting politically involved individuals are likely to speak out. Furthermore, they are less likely to ignore disagreeable opinions. Sharing content on SNSs signals opinion intensity, a known predictor of speaking out.23–26 Therefore, both general and specific SNS use serve as contingent conditions in online environments. User-posted content serves as both media and interpersonal communication. Frequently encountering like-minded political posts enhances chances of offering positive affirmation. Therefore, results mirror previous offline tests finding interpersonal political discussion predicts speaking out.27 Overall, results show that the spiral of silence theory is alive and well in certain online environments such as Facebook given its social and quasi-public nature. Varying SNS uses and encountered opinion climates produce differential results. In other words, opinion expression in SNSs may exert dual silencing and liberating effects. Social media is a mass medium based upon interpersonal communication, changing the way mass media is conceptualized. Although many findings are in line with the basic theoretical contention, changes resulting from new technology challenge researchers to consider circumstances revolving around media use as a variable central to the effects process.4 This study represents an initial attempt to investigate the role of SNS uses and opinion climates in the dynamics of the theory. Future tests should examine psychological attributes, such as willingness to self-censor, known to be influential in the spiral of silence process. Additionally, identified contingent conditions should be examined to identify behavioral factors that might attenuate the spiral of silence effect. Acknowledgments
Data were taken from the Pew Research Center’s Internet and American Life Project February 2012 survey Search, Social Networks, and Politics. Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist. References
1. Noelle-Neumann E. The spiral of silence: a theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication 1974; 24:43–51. 2. Glynn CJ, Hayes AF, Shanahan J. Perceived support for one’s opinions and willingness to speak out: a meta-analysis of survey studies on the ‘‘spiral of silence.’’ Public Opinion Quarterly 1997; 61:452–463. 3. Moy P, Hussain MM. (2014) Media and public opinion in a fragmented society. In Donsbach W, Salmon CT, Tsfati Y, eds. The spiral of silence: new perspectives on communication and public opinion. New York: Routledge, pp. 92–100. 4. Metzger MJ. (2009) The study of media effects in the era of Internet communication. In Nabi RL, Oliver MB, eds. The Sage handbook of media processes and effects. Los Angeles, CA: Sage, pp. 561–576.
GEARHART AND ZHANG
5. boyd d, Ellison N. Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2007; 13:210–230. 6. Gearhart S. Zhang W. Gay bullying and online opinion expression: testing spiral of silence in the social media environment. Social Science Computer Review 2014; 32:18–36. 7. Hayes A. Exploring the forms of self-censorship: on the spiral of silence and the use of opinion expression avoidance strategies. Journal of Communication 2007; 57:785–802. 8. Chaffee S, Metzger MJ. The end of mass communication? Mass Communication & Society 2001; 4:365–379. 9. Wanta W, Dimitrova D. (2000) Chatrooms and the spiral of silence: an examination of online discussions during the final 1996 U.S. presidential debate. Paper presented at the International Communication Association, Acapulco, Mexico. 10. McDevitt M, Kiousis S, Wahl-Jorgensen K. Spiral of moderation: opinion expression in computer-mediated communication. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2003; 15:454–470. 11. Ho SS. McLeod DM. Social-psychological influences on opinion expression in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Communication Research 2008; 35:190–207. 12. Yun GW, Park, S-Y. Selective posting willingness to post a message online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2011; 16:201–227. 13. de Zuniga HG, Jung N, Valenzuela S. Social media use for news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2012; 17:319–336. 14. Bassili JN. The minority slowness effect: subtle inhibitions in the expression of views not shared by others. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology 2003; 84:261–276. 15. Huge ME, Glynn CJ. Hesitation blues: does minority opinion status lead to delayed responses? Communication Research 2012; 40:287–307. 16. Neuwirth K, Fredrick E, Mayo C. The spiral of silence and fear of isolation. Journal of Communication 2007; 57:450–468. 17. Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2012) Search, social networks, and politics. http://www.pewinternet.org/ datasets/february-2012-search-social-networks-and-politics/ (accessed Oct. 8, 2012). 18. Hampton KN, Rainie L, Lu W, et al. (2014) Social media and the ‘‘spiral of silence.’’ www.pewinternet.org/files/2014/ 08/PI_Social-networks-and-debate_082614.pdf (accessed Nov. 26, 2014). 19. Rainie L, Smith A. (2012) Social networking sites and politics. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. 20. Binder AR, Dalrymple KE, Brossard D, et al. The soul of a polarized democracy: testing theoretical linkages between talk and attitude extremity during the 2004 presidential election. Communication Research 2009; 36:315–340. 21. Noelle-Neumann E. Turbulences in the climate of opinion: methodological applications of the spiral of silence theory. Public Opinion Quarterly 1977; 41:143–158. 22. Swigger N. The online citizen: is social media changing citizens’ beliefs about democratic values? Political Behavior 2013; 35:589–603. 23. Baldassare M, Katz C. Measures of attitude strength as predictors of willingness to speak to the media. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 1996; 73:147–158. 24. Glynn CF, Park E. Reference groups, opinion intensity, and public opinion expression. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 1997; 9:213–232.
WAS IT SOMETHING I SAID?
25. Moy P, Domke D, Stamm D. The spiral of silence and public opinion on affirmative action. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 2001; 8:7–25. 26. Salmon CT, Neuwirth K. Perceptions of opinion ‘‘climates’’ and willingness to discuss the issue of abortion. Journalism Quarterly 1990; 67:567–577. 27. Neuwirth K. Testing the spiral of silence model: the case of Mexico. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2000; 12:138–159.
213
Address correspondence to: Dr. Sherice Gearhart School of Communication University of Nebraska at Omaha 6001 Dodge Street Omaha, NE 68182 E-mail: [email protected]
