https://en.wikipedia.

org/wiki/Etiquette_in_technology

Etiquette in technology - Wikipedia

Authority control
19-24 minutos

Online etiquette is ingrained into culture, although etiquette in technology is a fairly recent concept.
The rules of etiquette that apply when communicating over the Internet or social networks or
devices are different from those applied when communicating in person or by audio (such as
telephone) or videophone. It is a social code of network communication and help.
Communicating with others via the Internet without misunderstandings in the heat of the moment
can be challenging, mainly because facial expressions and body language cannot be interpreted in
cyberspace. Therefore, several recommendations to attempt to safeguard against these
misunderstandings have been proposed.

Netiquette[edit]
Netiquette,[1] a colloquial portmanteau of network etiquette or Internet etiquette, is a set of social
conventions that facilitate interaction over networks, ranging from Usenet and mailing lists to blogs
and forums.
Like the network itself, these developing norms remain in a state of flux and vary from community
to community. The points most strongly emphasized about Usenet netiquette often include using
simple electronic signatures, and avoiding multiposting, cross-posting, off-topic posting, hijacking a
discussion thread, and other techniques used to minimize the effort required to read a post or a
thread. Similarly, some Usenet guidelines call for use of unabbreviated English[2][3] while users of
instant messaging protocols like SMS occasionally encourage just the opposite, bolstering use of
SMS language. However, many online communities frown upon this practice.
Common rules for e-mail[4] and Usenet such as avoiding flamewars and spam are constant across
most mediums and communities. Another rule is to avoid typing in all caps or grossly enlarging
script for emphasis, which is considered to be the equivalent of shouting or yelling. Other
commonly shared points, such as remembering that one's posts are (or can easily be made) public,
are generally intuitively understood by publishers of Web pages and posters to Usenet, although this
rule is somewhat flexible depending on the environment. On more private protocols, however, such
as e-mail and SMS, some users take the privacy of their posts for granted. One-on-one
communications, such as private messages on chat forums and direct SMS, may be considered more
private than other such protocols, but infamous breaches surround even these relatively private
media. For example, Paris Hilton's Sidekick PDA was cracked in 2005, resulting in the publication
of her private photos, SMS history, address book, etc.[5]
A group e-mail sent by Cerner CEO Neal Patterson to managers of a facility in Kansas City
concerning "Cerner's declining work ethic" read, in part, "The parking lot is sparsely used at 8
A.M.; likewise at 5 P.M. As managers—you either do not know what your EMPLOYEES are doing,
or YOU do not CARE ... In either case, you have a problem and you will fix it or I will replace
you."[6] After the e-mail was forwarded to hundreds of other employees, it quickly leaked to the
public. On the day that the e-mail was posted to Yahoo!, Cerner's stock price fell by over 22%[7]
from a high market capitalization of US$1.5 billion.[8]
Beyond matters of basic courtesy and privacy, e-mail syntax (defined by RFC 2822) allows for
different types of recipients. The primary recipient, defined by the To: line, can reasonably be
expected to respond, but recipients of carbon copies cannot be, although they still might.[9]
Likewise, misuse of the CC: functions in lieu of traditional mailing lists can result in serious
technical issues. In late 2007, employees of the United States Department of Homeland Security
used large CC: lists in place of a mailing list to broadcast messages to several hundred users.
Misuse of the "reply to all" caused the number of responses to that message to quickly expand to
some two million messages, bringing down their mail server.[10] In cases like this, rules of
netiquette have more to do with efficient sharing of resources—ensuring that the associated
technology continues to function—rather than more basic etiquette. On Usenet, cross-posting, in
which a single copy of a message is posted to multiple groups is intended to prevent this from
happening, but many newsgroups frown on the practice, as it means users must sometimes read
many copies of a message in multiple groups.
When someone makes a mistake—whether it's a spelling error or a spelling flame, a
stupid question or an unnecessarily long answer—be kind about it. If it's a minor error,
you may not need to say anything. Even if you feel strongly about it, think twice before
reacting. Having good manners yourself doesn't give you license to correct everyone
else. If you do decide to inform someone of a mistake, point it out politely, and
preferably by private email rather than in public. Give people the benefit of the doubt;
assume they just don't know any better. And never be arrogant or self-righteous about it.
Just as it's a law of nature that spelling flames always contain spelling errors, notes
pointing out Netiquette violations are often examples of poor Netiquette.Rule[11]

When referring to a previous discussion or expertise, quote a few lines instead of entire paragraphs.
Select quotes provides enough description without bogging down a discussion and detracting from
our own points. Be brief, don't write out dissertations for simple questions, if you post long to reply
to simple questions for advice, many will be unlikely to read it.[12]
Due to the large variation between what is considered acceptable behavior in various professional
environments and between professional and social networks, codified internal manuals of style can
help clarify acceptable limits and boundaries for user behavior. For instance, failure to publish such
a guide for e-mail style was cited among the reasons for an NZ$17,000 wrongful dismissal finding
against a firm that fired a woman for misuse of all caps in company-wide e-mail traffic.[13][14]

Online etiquette[edit]
Digital citizenship is how a person should act while using digital technology online and has also
been defined as "the ability to participate in society online".[15][16] The term is often mentioned in
relation to Internet safety and netiquette.[17][18][19]
The term has been used as early as 1998 and has gone through several changes in description as
newer technological advances have changed the method and frequency of how people interact with
one another online.[20][21] Classes on digital citizenship have been taught in some public
education systems and some argue that the term can be "measured in terms of economic and
political activities online".[22][23]

Cell phone etiquette[edit]

A headrest cover in the "quiet carriage" of a British intercity train, reminding passengers that mobile
phones must not be used in this carriage
The issue of mobile communication and etiquette has also become an issue of academic interest.
The rapid adoption of the device has resulted in the intrusion of telephony into situations where it
was previously not used. This has exposed the implicit rules of courtesy and opened them to
reevaluation.[24]

Cell phone etiquette in the education system[edit]

Most schools in the United States, Europe and Canada have prohibited mobile phones in the
classroom, citing class disruptions and the potential for cheating via text messaging[citation needed]. In
the UK, possession of a mobile phone in an examination can result in immediate disqualification
from that subject or from all that student's subjects. This still applies even if the mobile phone was
not turned on at the time. In New York City, students are banned from taking cell phones to school.
This has been a debate for several years, but finally passed legislature in 2008.[25]
"Most schools allow students to have cell phones for safety purposes"—a reaction to the Littleton,
Colorado, high school shooting incident of 1999 (Lipscomb 2007: 50). Apart from emergency
situations, most schools don't officially allow students to use cell phones during class time.

Cell phone etiquette in the public sphere[edit]

Talking or texting on a cell phone in public may seem a distraction for many individuals. When in
public there are two times when one uses a phone. The first is when someone is alone and the other
is when he/she is in a group. The main issue for most people is when they are in a group, and the
cell phone becomes a distraction or a barrier for successful socialization among family and friends.
In the past few years, society has become less tolerant of cell phone use in public areas for example,
public transportation, restaurants and much more. This is exemplified by the widespread recognition
of campaigns such as Stop Phubbing, which prompted global discussion as to how mobile phones
should be used in the presence of others. "Some have suggested that mobile phones 'affect every
aspect of our personal and professional lives either directly or indirectly'" (Humphrey). Every
culture's tolerance of cell phone usage varies, for instance in Western society cell phones are
permissible during free time at schools, whereas in the eastern countries, cell phones are strictly
prohibited on school property.
Mobile phone use can be an important matter of social discourtesy: phones ringing during funerals
or weddings; in toilets, cinemas and theatres. Some book shops, libraries, bathrooms, cinemas,
doctors' offices and places of worship prohibit their use, so that other patrons will not be disturbed
by conversations. Some facilities install signal-jamming equipment to prevent their use, although in
many countries, including the US, such equipment is illegal. Some new auditoriums have installed
wire mesh in the walls to make a Faraday cage, which prevents signal penetration without violating
signal jamming laws.[citation needed]
A working group made up of Finnish telephone companies, public transport operators and
communications authorities has launched a campaign to remind mobile phone users of courtesy,
especially when using mass transit—what to talk about on the phone, and how to. In particular, the
campaign wants to impact loud mobile phone usage as well as calls regarding sensitive matters.[26]
Trains, particularly those involving long-distance services, often offer a "quiet carriage" where
phone use is prohibited, much like the designated non-smoking carriage of the past. In the UK
however many users tend to ignore this as it is rarely enforced, especially if the other carriages are
crowded and they have no choice but to go in the "quiet carriage".[citation needed] In Japan, it is
generally considered impolite to talk using a phone on any train—e-mailing is generally the mode
of mobile communication. Mobile phone usage on local public transport is also increasingly seen as
a nuisance; the city of Graz, for instance, has mandated a total ban of mobile phones on its tram and
bus network in 2008 (though texting and emailing is still allowed).[27][28]
Nancy J. Friedman has spoken widely about landline and cell phone etiquette.[29][30]

[edit]
When critically assessing the family structure, it is important to examine the parent/child
negotiations which occur in the household, in relation to the increased use of cell phones. Teenagers
use their cell phones as a way to negotiate spatial boundaries with their parents (Williams
2005:316). This includes extending curfews in the public space and allowing more freedom for the
teenagers when they are outside of the home (Williams 2005:318). More importantly, cell phone
etiquette relates to kinship groups and the family as an institution. This is because cell phones act as
a threat due to the rapid disconnect within families. Children are often so closely affiliated with
their technological gadgets, and they tend to interact with their friends constantly and this has a
negative impact on their relationship with their parents (Williams 2005:326). Teenagers see
themselves as gaining a sense of empowerment from the mobile phone. Cell phone etiquette in the
household from an anthropological perspective has shown an evolution in the institution of family.
The mobile phone has now been integrated into family practices and perpetuated a wider concern
which is the fracture between parent and child relationships. We are able to see the traditional
values disappearing; however, reflexive monitoring is occurring (Williams 2005:320). Through this,
parents are becoming friendlier with their children and critics emphasize that this change is
problematic because children should be subjected to social control. One way of social control is
limiting the time spent interacting with friends, which is difficult to do in today's society because of
the rapid use of cell phones.

Netiquette vs. cell phone etiquette[edit]

Cell phone etiquette is largely dependent on the cultural context and what is deemed to be socially
acceptable. For instance, in certain cultures using your handheld devices while interacting in a
group environment is considered bad manners, whereas, in other cultures around the world it may
be viewed differently. In addition, cell phone etiquette also encompasses the various types of
activities which are occurring and the nature of the messages which are being sent. More
importantly, messages of an inappropriate nature can be sent to an individual and this could
potentially orchestrate problems such as verbal/cyber abuse.
New technology and behaviors[edit]
Perhaps the biggest obstacle to communication in online settings is the lack of emotional cues.
Facial cues dictate the mood and corresponding diction of two people in a conversation. During
phone conversations, tone of voice communicates the emotions of the person on the other line. But
with chat rooms, instant messaging apps and texting, any signals that would indicate the tone of a
person's words or their state of emotion are absent. Because of this, there have been some
interesting accommodations. Perhaps the two most prevalent compensating behaviors are the use of
emoticons and abbreviations. Emoticons use punctuation marks to illustrate common symbols that
pertain to facial cues. For example, one would combine a colon and parenthesis to recreate the
symbol of the smiley face indicating the happiness or satisfaction of the other person. To symbolize
laughter, the abbreviation "LOL" standing for "laughing out loud" developed. Along with these,
countless other symbols and abbreviations have developed including, "BRB" ("be right back"),
"TTYL" (talk to you later) and specific designs incorporated by apps of a laughing face, sad face,
crying face, angry face etc.
Now, as newer modes of communication are becoming more common, the rules of communication
must adapt as fast as the technology. For example, one of the most popular new apps, Snapchat, is
growing to have its own rules and etiquette. This app lets a user send pictures or videos that
disappear after a couple seconds. Initially, the thought that occurs to people when confronted by this
app is its implications for sexting. Although it is entirely possible to make use of Snapchat for that
purpose, what the app has developed into is a form of communication that shares funny or
interesting moments. Originally compared to Instagram[31] by way of the app's ability to broadcast
pictures to many people, it has now become standard to communicate through Snapchat by sending
pictures back and forth and using the caption bar for messages. The reply option on Snapchat
specifically promotes this behavior, but Snapchat etiquette is not set in stone. It is becoming clear
that Snaps personalized for the receiver expect a reply, but where ends this obligation? Some people
use Snapchat specifically for the purpose of communication, while some use it to simply provide a
visual update of their day. The newest update of Snapchat, an instant messaging add-on, seems to be
catered to those who use the app to send messages back and forth. This new messaging add-on,
along with the video chat feature will warrant new forms of social construct and expectations of
behavior in accordance with this application.

See also[edit]
• Restrictions on cell phone use by U.S. drivers
• Eternal September
• Shotgun email
• Digital citizen

References[edit]
1. ^ "RFC1855". Retrieved 2015-01-12.
2. ^ "Zen and the Art of the Internet—Usenet News". Retrieved 2007-08-18.
3. ^ "Links to Prof. Timo Salmi's FAQ material". Archived from the original on 2007-08-22.
Retrieved 2007-08-18.
4. ^ The Complete Idiot's Guide to... Writing Well By Laurie Rozakis,
https://books.google.com/books?id=YFIEfqL48AMC&pg=PA348&dq=netiquette&ie=ISO-
8859-1&sig=t9ZuKcbWOymIy9oNrRAy9ZfAikI#PPA348,M1
5. ^ "Paris Hilton's hacked Sidekick releases unedited tell-all". engadget.com.
6. ^ "Zero to billion". CNN. 2006-04-26. Retrieved 2010-05-20.
7. ^ "ITworld.com—Unix security: Proprietary e-mail". www.pegasimediagroup.
8. ^ E-Mail Rules: A Business Guide to Managing Policies, Security, and Legal Issues for E-
Mail and Digital Communications By Randolph Kahn & Nancy Flynn
https://books.google.com/books?id=Q9CbhiflZh0C&pg=PA45&dq=netiquette&ie=ISO-
8859-1&sig=5jsrxx0u3qWX1_d4KXCl-_4Tc_4#PPA47,M1
9. ^ https://archive.is/20120701160707/http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-
1043085.html Electronic office etiquette
10.^ "DHS flunks e-mail administration 101, causes mini-DDoS". arstechnica.com.
11.^ Shea. V, Netiquette. (1997) http://www.albion.com/netiquette/book/index.html
12.^ "15 Rules of Netiquette for Online Discussion Boards [INFOGRAPHIC]". Touro's
College Online Education Department. Touro College: Nevada. Retrieved 24 April 2019.
13.^ Lewis, Rebecca (August 30, 2009). "Emails spark woman's sacking". The New Zealand
Herald. Retrieved October 30, 2011.
14.^ Moore, Matthew. "Office worker sacked for writing emails in block capitals". Daily
Telegraph, Sep 1, 2009. Accessed May 20, 2010.
15.^ "What does digital citizenship mean to you?". Microsoft. Retrieved 13 September 2013.
16.^ Mossberger, Karen (2008). Routledge Handbook of Internet Politics. Routledge. pp. 173–
185. ISBN 0415780586.
17.^ Britland, Mike (26 August 2013). "How to teach ... esafety and digital citizenship".
Guardian. Retrieved 13 September 2013.
18.^ Ohler, Jason (2010). Digital Community, Digital Citizen. Corwin Press.
ISBN 1412971446.
19.^ Ribble, Mike (2011). Digital Citizenship in Schools. International Society for Technology
in Education. ISBN 1564843017.
20.^ Loader, Brian (2007). Young Citizens in the Digital Age. Routledge. pp. 133–134.
ISBN 0203946723.
21.^ Bebo White, Irwin King, Philip Tsang (2011). Social Media Tools and Platforms in
Learning Environments. Springer. pp. 406–407. ISBN 3642203914.
22.^ "Mars Area School District teaching new course on Internet safety". WPXI. Aug 22, 2013.
Retrieved 13 September 2013.
23.^ Karen Mossberger, Caroline J. Tolbert, William Franko (2012). Digital Cities: The
Internet and the Geography of Opportunity. Oxford University Press. pp. 64–65.
ISBN 0199812950.
24.^ Ling, Richard, "One Can Talk About Common Manners", 2007.
25.^ [1], Medina, Jennifer
26.^ campaign to promote cell phone manners (in finish)
27.^ "In Grazer "Öffis" sind Handys ab heute verboten". Kleine Zeitung (in German).
Klagenfurt: Styria Medien AG. 2008-04-16. p. 18.
28.^ ""Rücksichtsvoll" oder "völlig sinnlos"". Der Standard Online version (in German).
Vienna. 2008-04-18. p. 18.
 29.^ Davies, Kent R. (October 2000). "Database". Mobile Manners. Rotarian. p. 16. Retrieved
8 May 2012.
30.^ Doane, Darryl S.; Sloat, Rose D (2003-09-01). 50 Activities for Achieving Excellent
Customer Service. pp. 6, 24, 85. ISBN 9780874257373. Retrieved 8 May 2012.
31.^ Gross, Doug. "Snapchat: Sexting Tool, or the next Instagram?" CNN. Cable News
Network, 10 January 2013. Web. 1 May 2014.
• This article is based on material taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November
2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later.

Further reading[edit]
• Pręgowski, Michał Piotr, "Rediscovering the netiquette: the role of propagated values and
personal patterns in defining self-identity of the Internet user", Observatorio 2009: 354–356.
Google Scholar. Web. 15 Dec. 2010.
• Null, Christopher "Text Messaging Etiquette: To Text or Not to Text". PC World 2010. Web.
15 December 2010.

External links[edit]
• RFC1855: the historical 1995 document at IETF, listing Netiquette guidelines.
• ToastMasters on Social Media Etiquette
• "A new sort of online protocol", CNET, 1997 (last accessed: 16 March 2019)
• The rules of netiquette—Matthew Strawbridge's weblog, 2009
• Some FAQ's about Mailing Lists and Mailing List Netiquette
• Virginia Shea, Netiquette (online ed.) book
Spiral of silence
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to navigation Jump to search

The spiral of silence theory is a political science and mass communication theory proposed by the
German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, which stipulates that individuals have a fear
of isolation, which results from the idea that a social group or the society in general might isolate,
neglect, or exclude members due to the members' opinions. This fear of isolation consequently leads
to remaining silent instead of voicing opinions. Media is an important factor that relates to both the
dominant idea and people's perception of the dominant idea. The assessment of one's social
environment may not always correlate with reality.[1]

Contents
• 1 Background
• 1.1 Spiral model
• 2 Epistemology
• 2.1 Public
• 2.2 Opinion
• 2.3 Public opinion
• 2.4 Media and public opinion
• 3 Assumptions
• 3.1 Fear of isolation
• 3.2 Assessing the climate
• 3.2.1 Quasi-statistical sense
• 3.2.2 Pluralistic ignorance
• 3.3 Evaluation of public opinion matters
• 4 Vocal minority and hardcore
• 5 Application of the theory
• 5.1 Cross cultural studies
• 5.1.1 The United States and Taiwan
• 5.1.2 Basque nationalism
• 5.2 Perceptions in the classroom
• 5.3 In computer-mediated communication
• 5.4 In social media contexts
• 5.5 Social capital
• 6 Internet
• 6.1 Isolating the factors that remove isolation
• 6.2 Online versus offline
• 6.3 Heterogeneity and anonymity
 • 6.4 Equality
• 7 Methodological research approaches
• 8 Criticisms
• 8.1 False dilemmas and silence of consistency
• 9 See also
• 10 Notes
• 10.1 References
• 10.2 Bibliography

Background
Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann, the German political scientist contributes the famous model called
“Spiral of Silence”. In 1947 Neumann and her husband found “Public Opinion Organization” in
German and also she was a President of “World Association for Public Opinion Research” from
1978 to 1980.
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."[2] 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."[3]
The theory explains the formation of social norms at both the micro and macro level. "As a micro-
theory, the spiral of silence examines opinion expression, controlling for people's predispositions –
such as fear of isolation, and also demographic variables that have been shown to influence people's
willingness to publicly express opinions on issues, such as agricultural biotechnology."[1] The
spiral of silence occurs on a macro level if more and more members of the perceived minority fall
silent. This is when public perceptions of the opinion climate begin to shift.[1] "In other words, a
person's individual reluctance to express his or her opinion, simply based on perceptions of what
everyone else thinks, has important implications at the social level."[1] As one opinion gains the
interest of the majority, the minority faces threat and fear of isolation from society. As the opinion
gains momentum by the majority, the minority continues to be threatened and falls deeper into their
silence. It continues until the minority no longer speaks out against it, and the opinion of the
perceived majority ultimately becomes a social norm.[4]

Spiral model
The spiral model is an analogy used to visually describe the theory. The end of the spiral refers to
the number of people who are not publicly expressing their opinions, due to the fear of isolation. An
individual is more likely to go down the spiral if his or her opinion does not conform with the
perceived majority opinion.[4] The following steps summarize how the process works:
1. We can distinguish between fields where the opinions and attitudes involved are static, and
fields where those opinions and attitudes are subject to changes... Where opinions are
relatively definite and static – for example, "customs" – one has to 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.
2. Individuals who, when observing their environments, notice that their own personal opinion
is spreading and is taken over by others, will voice this opinion self-confidently in public.
On the other hand, individuals who notice that their own opinions are losing ground will be
inclined to adopt a more reserved attitude when expressing their opinions in public.
3. It follows from this that, as the representatives of the first opinion talk quite a lot while the
representatives of the second opinion remain silent, there is a definite influence on the
environment: an opinion that is being reinforced in this way appears stronger than it really
is, while an opinion suppressed as described will seem to be weaker than it is in reality.
4. The result is a spiral process which prompts other individuals to perceive the changes in
opinion and follow suit, until one opinion has become established as the prevailing attitude
while the other opinion will be pushed back and rejected by everybody with the exception of
the hard core that nevertheless sticks to that opinion.[5]
This is a process of formation, change and reinforcement of public opinion. The tendency of the one
to speak up and the other to be silent starts off a spiraling process which increasingly establishes
one opinion as the dominant one. Over time, these changing perceptions establish one opinion as
predominant one and they change from the liquid state to a solid norm.[5]
Further, Noelle-Neumann describes the spiral of silence as a dynamic process, in which predictions
about 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.[6]

Epistemology
Public
Scholars have long argued over the concept of public within "public opinion". The use of "public"
and "the public" betrays multiple competing meanings.[4] There are three meanings of public. One
meaning is the legal sense of public that focuses on openness. For example, a public place or path.
A second meaning for the term emphasizes public rights. Lastly, within the phrase public opinion,
public is said to have a related but different definition. Public, in this sense, could be characterized
as social psychology. 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.[4]

Opinion
"Common Opinion" is what the Scottish social philosopher David Hume called it in his 1739
published work A Treatise of Human Nature. Agreement and a sense of the common is what lay
behind the English and French "opinion."[4] In researching the term opinion, meinung in German,
researchers were led back to Plato's Republic. In Plato's Republic, a quote from Socrates conclude
that opinion takes the middle position. Immanuel Kant considered opinion to be an "insufficient
judgement, subjectively as well as objectively."[7] 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.[4]
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. 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.[4]

It was said to be a "fiction that belonged in a museum of the history of ideas; it could only be of
historical interest."[4]
In contradiction to that quote, the term public opinion seemed to not cease. During the early 1970s,
Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann was creating the theory of the spiral of silence. She was making an
effort to clarify the 1965 finding of which voting intentions would not change but yet expectations
that one side would win continued to increase. Noelle-Nuemann began to question if she was indeed
grabbing a handle on what public opinion actually was. "The spiral of silence might be one of the
forms in which public opinion appeared; it might be a process through which a new, youthful public
opinion develops or whereby the transformed meaning of an old opinion spreads."[4]
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."[8]
Many possible meanings and definitions of the term have been explored. Scholars have considered
the content of public opinion, assumed to consist of public affairs issues. 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."[9]
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.[4]

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 1923.[10] 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."[8]
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.[11] Along with setting the agenda, the media further determines the salient issues
through a constant battle with other events attempting to gain place in the agenda.[8] The media
battles with these news alternatives by creating "pseudo-crises" and "pseudo-novelties."[8]
Media's characteristics as a communication tool further affect people's perception of their own ideas
in regard to the public opinion.[8] According to Noelle-Neumann, the media is a "one-sided,
indirect, public form of communication, contrasting threefold with the most natural form of human
communication, the conversation."[8] 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,[12] the spiral model assumes an active audience "who consumes media products in
the context of their personal and social goals."[12] Knowledge "gained from the mass media may
offer ammunition for people to express their opinions and offer a rationale for their own
stance."[13] 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."[13]
Noelle-Neuman regards media 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 proposes as the perceived social norm.[14][15] Some empirical research
align with this perspective; suggesting that the "micro-climate" of an individual overwhelms the
effects of the media.[15] Other articles further suggest that talking with others is the primary way of
understanding the opinion climate.[16]

Assumptions
Fear of isolation
The fear of isolation is the centrifugal force that accelerates the spiral of silence.[17] 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.[18] People feel
more comfortable by agreeing with opinions that they know are wrong instead of telling others their
ideas.[1]

Assessing the climate

This assumption proposes that in order to avoid becoming isolated and in order not to lose
popularity and esteem, people constantly observe their environment very closely. They try to find
out which opinions and modes of behaviour are prevalent, and which opinions and modes of
behaviour are becoming more popular. They behave and express themselves accordingly in public.
Then, they try to determine whether they are in the majority: whether the public opinion tends to
agree with them. If they feel they are in the minority, they tend to remain silent.[19]
Quasi-statistical sense
Individuals use what is described as "an innate ability" or quasi-statistical sense to gauge public
opinion.[20] People assume they can sense and figure out what others are thinking.[1]
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.[21]

Pluralistic ignorance
Pluralistic ignorance may occur in some cases, leading to the minority opinion to be accepted as a
norm. Group members may be privately rejecting a norm, but may falsely assume that other group
members accept it. This phenomenon may cause a group to hold on to a norm.[22]

Evaluation of public opinion matters

Our evaluation of a public opinion has an effect on our decision to speak up. 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. Individuals tend to publicly express their opinions and attitudes when they perceive their
view to be dominant or on the rise. Conversely, when individuals perceive that their opinion is less
popular or losing popularity, they are less likely to voice it in public. What one individual decides to
do affects all of society around them.[1]

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, are likely to speak out regardless of public opinion.[23] 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."[17] 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."[17]

Application of the theory

The spiral of silence has brought insight regarding diverse topics, ranging from speaking about
popular culture phenomena,[24] to smoking.[25] Considering that the spiral of silence is more
likely to occur in controversial issues and issues with a moral component,[8] many scholars have
applied the theory to controversial topics, such as abortion,[26] affirmative action,[27] and capital
punishment.[28]
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.[29] 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.[30]

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 regards 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 regards 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.[31]

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
regards to fellow Basques. Furthermore, the Spanish individuals questioned were more likely to be
silent because of their greater proximity to the violent acts.[32]

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 university classroom climates and
communication behaviors."[33] They looked at whether students' view of the classroom changes
whether they perceive the instructor and other classmates with a different political affiliation, with
the instructor and other classmates communicating using silencing behaviors. The article stated that
little has been investigated into student-teacher interactions in the classroom, and how the students
are influenced.[33] 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."[33]
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."[33]
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.[33] 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 political party and ideological differences of the student and instructor to perceived
greater political silencing.[33]

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.[34] 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.[35] The third study focuses on the online
review system, suggesting that the fear of isolation tend to reduce the willingness of members to
voice neutral and negative reviews.[36] The Spiral of Silence Theory is 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.[36]

In social media contexts

Current literature suggests that the spiral model can be applied to the social media context. Gearhart
and Zhang conduct a study to examine whether or not the use of 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".[37] 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.[38]

Social capital
The spiral of silence theory can be also applied to social capital context. Recent studies see social
capital as "a variable that enables citizens to develop norms of trust and reciprocity, which are
necessary for successful engagement in collective activities".[39] 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.[39] 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".[39]

Internet
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.[40][41] Other researchers have defined
isolation as low levels of peer acceptance or high levels of peer rejection.[42] 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[43][44][45] 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.[46][47] 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.[48] 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.[49][50][51]
Traditionally, social isolation has been represented as a one-dimensional construct organized around
the notion of a person's position outside the peer group and refers to isolation from the group as a
result of being excluded from the group by peers.[52] 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.[53] 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."[54]
The medium of the Internet has the power to free people from the fear of social isolation, and in
doing so, shuts down the spiral of silence. The Internet allows people to find a place where they can
find groups of people with like mindsets and similar points of view. Van Alstyne and Brynjolfsson
stated that "Internet users can seek out interactions with like-minded individuals who have similar
values, and thus become less likely to trust important decisions to people whose values differ from
their own."[55] 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."[56] 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.[57]

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.[58] Liu and Fahmy stated that "it is easy to quit from an online discussion without
the pressure of complying with the majority group."[59] 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.[59] But people in the online
environment will speak up if someone has a reference group that speaks up for them.[59] In an
online situation, just having one person be there to encourage a minority point of view can put an
end to a spiral of silence. Another reason for why the spiral of silence theory has less of an effect
online could be that studies do not acknowledge whether the person is more likely to speak out
against dominant views offline as well.[59] The person might have characteristics that make him
comfortable speaking out against dominant views offline, which make them just as comfortable
speaking out in an online setting. Even though research suggests that there is a chance people will
speak out with their opinions more often in an online setting, silencing of views can still occur.
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.[60]
Gonzenbach and Nekmat 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.[60]
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."[61] 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.[62][63][64][65]
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.[66]
The groups' ability to taunt an individual is lessened on the Internet,[citation needed] 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.
[67] 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.[68]
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.[citation needed] In computer-mediated communication, physical isolation often
already exists and poses no further threat.[69] Second, a great deal of normative influence is
communicated through nonverbal cues, such as eye contact and gestures,[70] but computer-
mediated communication typically precludes many of these cues. Third, Keisler, Siegel, and
McQuire observe that nonverbal social context cues convey formality and status inequality in face-
to-face communication.[71] 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.[72] The form and consequences of conformity influence should
undergo significant changes given the interposition of a medium that reduces the social presence of
participants.[69] Social presence is defined as the degree of salience of the other person in the
interaction[73] or the degree to which the medium conveys some of the person's presence.[74]

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.[69] 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".[75]
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".[76] While status cues are difficult to detect, perceptions
about the status converge, and this lessens stereotyping and prejudice.[67]
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".[77] Next to this, the Internet has rapidly and dramatically
increased the capacities to develop, share and organize information,[78] realizing more equality of
access to information.[79]

Methodological research approaches

The relationship between the perception of public opinion and willingness to speak-up is mainly
measured through surveys[80] In 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.[81] A research study
addressed this criticism by comparatively testing a spiral model both in a hypothetical survey and in
a focus group.[81] The findings are in line with the critic of hypothetical survey questions,
demonstrating a significant increase in the spiral of silence in focus groups.[81]
Among different approaches to survey methodology, cross-sectional study design is the leading
method employed to analyze and test the theory.[80] Cross-sectional design involves the analysis of
the relationship between public opinion and willingness to speak at one point in time.[80]
While many of the researchers employ cross-sectional design, some scholars employed panel data.
[82] 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."[83] 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.[83] 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".[83]
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.[84]
Scholars have also argued that both personal characteristics and various culture 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."[85] Another influence critics give for people choosing
not to speak out against public opinion is culture. Open expression of ideas is forbidden in some of
the cultures.[85] 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."[85] Scheufele & Moy, further assert that
certain conflict styles and cultural indicators should be used to understand these differences.[21]
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[8] 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.[83] 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."[86]
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."[9] 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."[9]
Further, Scheufele & Moy[21] 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.[21]
False dilemmas and silence of consistency
Research indicates that while the existence of groups with other opinions than those that are
supposed to be dominant in a society opens a possibility for some people to express some different
opinions, fallacy assumptions in such groups that criticism of particular aspects of that group's
program is support for society's mainstream views is a source of false dilemmas. This 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. The research in question
does not find a solution in many approaches of "recognizing cognitive bias" but instead indicate that
such assumptions are part of the problem by promoting the myth of one's own group having
overcome its bias by institutional means and allegations of rational critical arguments being due to
bias in the minds of critics, citing evolutionary research that shows that not only would any
predisposition for justification of views be selected against due to costing nutrients without
improving adaptivity of behavior, but that the claim that most adult humans are irrational due to
missing stimulation of rationality in early childhood is also evolutionarily indefensible as genes for
potential rationality would have been totally eliminated by selection before reaching significant
population fraction if they needed a society already promoting rationality to manifest themselves
adaptively. The research indicates that humans are not inherently irrational but are forced to pretend
irrationality by false dilemmas that claim rational criticism to be justifications for irrational
resentment, and suggest that openly expressed rationality can be promoted by discussions in which
no exclusion based on traditional political scales or beneficiary classifications exist but all
allegations of irrational motives as well as assumptions that some opinions are linked or that
criticism of one view is defence of another specific view are excluded.[87][88]

See also

• Asch conformity experiments

• Abilene paradox
• Bandwagon effect
• Blue wall of silence
• Bradley effect
• Bystander effect
• Cognitive bias
• Collective behavior
• Communal reinforcement
• Conformity
• Conspiracy of silence (expression)
• Flaming (Internet)
• Foot-in-the-door technique
• Group behaviour
• Groupthink
• Memory hole
 • Opinion corridor
• Overton window
• Pluralistic ignorance
• Shame society
• Shy Tory Factor
• Silent majority
• Third rail of politics
• Tyranny of the majority

Notes
References
1.
• Scheufele 2007.
• Neill 2009, p. 42.
• West, Richard; Turner, Lynn H. (2010). Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and
Applicatinon. New York: McGraw Hill. p. 411. ISBN 978-0-07-338507-5.
• Noelle-Neumann 1984.
• Noelle-Neumann 1977.
• Miller 2005, p. 278.
• Kant 1781, p. 498.
• Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth (1993). The spiral of silence: Public opinion, our social skin.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Lang, Kurt; Lang, Gladys Engel (1 September 2012). "What is this Thing we Call Public
Opinion? Reflections on the Spiral of Silence". International Journal of Public Opinion
Research. 24 (3): 368–386. doi:10.1093/ijpor/eds014. ISSN 0954-2892.
• Lippmann, W (1946). Public opinion. Transaction Publishers.
• McCombs, M. E; Shaw, D. L (1972). "The agenda-setting function of mass media". Public
Opinion Quarterly. 36 (2): 176–187. doi:10.1086/267990.
• Ball-Rokeach, S; Cantor, M. G (1986). Media, audience, and social structure. Sage
Publications, Inc.
• Ho, Shirley S.; Chen, Vivian Hsueh-Hua; Sim, Clarice C. (2013-04-01). "The spiral of
silence: examining how cultural predispositions, news attention, and opinion congruency
relate to opinion expression". Asian Journal of Communication. 23 (2): 113–134.
doi:10.1080/01292986.2012.725178. ISSN 0129-2986.
• Glynn, C. J; McLeod, J.M (1984). "Implications of the spiral of silence theory for
communication and public opinion research". Political Communication Yearbook: 43–65.
• Kennamer, J.D (1990). "Self-serving biases in perceiving the opinions of others:
Implications for the spiral of silence". Communication Research. 17 (3): 393–404.
doi:10.1177/009365090017003006.
• Tichenor, P. J; Wackman, D. B (1973). "Mass media and community public opinion".
American Behavioral Scientist. 16 (4): 593–606. doi:10.1177/000276427301600408.
• Griffen 2009.
• Cherry 2012.
• Weiman, Gabriel (2000). Communicating Unreality (1st ed.). United States of America:
Sage Publications, Inc.
• Miller 2005, p. 278.
• Scheufele & Moy 2000.
• Shelton, J. Nicole (2005). "Intergroup Contact and Pluralistic Ignorance". Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 88 (1): 91–107. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.91.
PMID 15631577.
• Miller 2005, p. 279.
• Wedel, T (1994). "The spiral of silence in popular culture: applying a public opinion theory
to radio station popularity". California State University.
• Shanahan et al. 2004.
• Salmon, C.T; Neuwirth, k (1990). "Perceptions of opinion "climates" and willingness to
discuss the issue of abortion". Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 67 (3): 567–
577. doi:10.1177/107769909006700312.
• Moy, P; Domke, D; Stamm, K (2001). "The spiral of silence and public opinion on
affirmative action". Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly. 78 (1): 7–25.
doi:10.1177/107769900107800102.
• Hayes, A.F (2007). "Exploring the Forms of Self-Censorship: On the Spiral of Silence and
the Use of Opinion Expression Avoidance Strategies". Journal of Communication. 57 (4):
785–802. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00368.x.
• Milgram, S (1961). "Nationality and conformity". Scientific American. 205 (6): 45–51.
Bibcode:1961SciAm.205f..45M. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1261-45.
• Bond, Rod; Smith, Peter B. (1996). "Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies
using Asch's (1952b, 1956) line judgment task". Psychological Bulletin. 119 (1): 111–137.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.1.111.
• Huang 2005.
• Spencer & Stephen 2008.
• Henson & Denker 2007.
• McDevitt, M. (1 December 2003). "Spiral of Moderation: Opinion Expression in Computer-
Mediated Discussion". International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 15 (4): 454–470.
doi:10.1093/ijpor/15.4.454.
• Jung Choi, Yun; Lee, Cheolhan; Hyuk Lee, Jong (March 2004). "Influence of poll results on
the advocates' political discourse: An application of functional analysis debates to online
messages in the 2002 Korean presidential election". Asian Journal of Communication. 14
(1): 95–110. doi:10.1080/0129298042000195189.
• Askay, David A. (1 December 2015). "Silence in the crowd: The spiral of silence
contributing to the positive bias of opinions in an online review system". New Media &
Society. 17 (11): 1811–1829. doi:10.1177/1461444814535190. ISSN 1461-4448.
• Gearhart, Sherice; Zhang, Weiwu (2015-04-16). ""Was It Something I Said?" "No, It Was
Something You Posted!" A Study of the Spiral of Silence Theory in Social Media Contexts".
Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking. 18 (4): 208–213.
doi:10.1089/cyber.2014.0443. PMID 25879378.
• Gearhart, S.; Zhang, W. (23 September 2013). "Gay Bullying and Online Opinion
Expression: Testing Spiral of Silence in the Social Media Environment". Social Science
Computer Review. 32 (1): 18–36. doi:10.1177/0894439313504261.
• Dalisay, Francis; Hmielowski, Jay D.; Kushin, Matthew James; Yamamoto, Masahiro
(2012). "Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence". International Journal of Public Opinion
Research. 24 (3): 325–345. doi:10.1093/ijpor/eds023.
• O'Connor 1969.
• O'Connor 1972.
• Gottman, Gonso & Rasmussen 1975.
• Kraut et al. 1998.
• Moody 2001.
• Sleek 1998.
• Morris & Ogan 2002.
• Bradley & Poppen 2003.
• Sassenberg 2002.
• Rheingold 1993.
• Cummings, Sproull & Kiesler 2002.
• McKenna & Bargh 1998.
• Bowker et al. 1998.
• Witschge 2002.
• Witschge 2002, p. 8.
• van Alstyne & Brynjolfsson 1996, p. 24.
• Coleman & Gøtze 2001, p. 17.
• O'Hara 2002.
• Liu & Fahmy 2009, p. 36.
• Liu & Fahmy 2009.
• Nekmat; Gonzenbach (2013). JMCQ. 90 (4). Missing or empty |title= (help)
• Page 1996, p. 124.
• Wanta & Dimitrova 2000.
• O'Sullivan 1995.
• Sproull & Kiesler 1992.
• Hiltz, Johnson & Turoff 1986.
• Wallace 1999, pp. 124–25.
• Wallace 1999.
• Stromer-Galley 2002, p. 35.
• McDevitt, Kiousis & Wahl-Jorgensen 2003.
• Burgoon, Buller & Woodall 1989.
• Keisler, Siegel & McQuire 1984.
• Williams 1977.
• Short, Williams & Christie 1976.
• Rice & Williams 1984.
• Dahlberg 2001, p. 14.
• Gastil 2000, p. 359.
• Wallace 1999, p. 99.
• Warren 2001.
• Gimmler 2001.
• Neuwirth, K (2007). "The Spiral of Silence and Fear of Isolation". Journal of
Communication. 57 (3): 450–468. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00352.x.
 • Scheufele, D. A.; Shanahan, J.; Lee, E. (1 June 2001). "Real Talk: Manipulating the
Dependent Variable in Spiral of Silence Research". Communication Research. 28 (3): 304–
324. doi:10.1177/009365001028003003.
• Katz, Cheryl; Baldassare, Mark (1994). "Popularity in a Freefall: Measuring a Spiral of
Silence at the End of the Bush Presidency". International Journal of Public Opinion
Research. 6 (1): 1–12. doi:10.1093/ijpor/6.1.1.
• Matthes, J. (2014). "Observing the "Spiral" in the Spiral of Silence". International Journal
of Public Opinion Research. 27 (2): 155–176. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edu032.
• Moy, Domke & Stamm 2001.
• Ross 2007.
• Splichal, Slavko (2015). "Legacy of Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann: The Spiral of Silence and
Other Controversies". European Journal of Communication. 30 (3): 353–363.
doi:10.1177/0267323115589265. (Retracted, see doi:10.1177/0267323116650776. If this is
an intentional citation to a retracted paper, please replace {{Retracted}} with
{{Retracted|intentional=yes}}.)
• Ray Scott Percival (2012). "The Myth of the Closed Mind: Explaining why and how People
are Rational".
88.Angelo Fusari (2014). "Methodological Misconceptions in the Social Sciences: Rethinking
Social Thought and Social Processes".

Bibliography
• van Alstyne, M; Brynjolfsson, E (1996), Electronic communities: Global village or
cyberbalkans? (paper), Cleveland, OH: The International Conference on Information
Systems.
• Anderson, JA (1996), Communication theory: epistemological foundations, New York, NY:
Guilford.
• Bradley, N; Poppen, W (2003), "Assistive technology, computers and Internet may decrease
sense of isolation for homebound elderly and disabled persons", Technology and Disability,
14 (1).
• Bowker, A; Bukowski, W; Zargarpour, S; Hoza, B (1998), "A structural and functional
analysis of a two-dimensional model of social isolation", Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 44:
447–63.
• Burgoon, JK; Buller, DB; Woodall, WG (1989), Nonverbal communication: The unspoken
dialogue, New York: Harper & Row.
• Cherry, Kendra (2012), "The Asch Conformity Experiments", Psychology, About, retrieved
Oct 8, 2013.
• Coleman, S; Gøtze, J (2001), Bowling together: Online public engagement in policy
deliberation (PDF), Archived from the original on 2008-09-16.
• Cummings, J; Sproull, L; Kiesler, SB (2002), "Beyond hearing: Where real-world and online
support meet", Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 6 (1): 78–88,
doi:10.1037/1089-2699.6.1.78.
• Dahlberg, L (2001), "The Internet and democratic discourse", Information, Communication
& Society, 4 (4): 615–33, doi:10.1080/13691180110097030.
• Gastil, J (2000), "Is face-to-face citizen deliberation a luxury or a necessity?", Political
Communication, 14 (4): 357–61, doi:10.1080/10584600050178960.
• Gimmler, A (2001), "Deliberative democracy, the public sphere and the Internet",
Philosophy and Social Criticism, 27 (4): 357–61, doi:10.1177/019145370102700402.
• Gonzenbach, WJ; King, C; Jablonski, P (1999), "Homosexuals and the military: an analysis
of the spiral of silence", Howard Journal of Communication, 10 (4): 281–96,
doi:10.1080/106461799246762.
• ———; Stevenson, RL (1994), "Children with AIDS attending public school: an analysis of
the spiral of silence", Political Communication, 1: 3–18,
doi:10.1080/10584609.1994.9963007.
• Gottman, J; Gonso, J; Rasmussen, B (1975), "Social interaction, social competence, and
friendship in children", Child Development, 46 (3): 709–18, doi:10.2307/1128569,
JSTOR 1128569.
• Griffen, EM (2009), A first look at communication theory (7th ed.), New York, NY: McGraw
Hill.
• Hayes, AF; Glynn, CJ; Shanahan, J (2005a), "Willingness to self-censor: A construct and
measurement tool for public opinion research", International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, 17 (3): 298–323, doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh073.
• ———; Glynn, CJ; Shanahan, J (2005b), "17", Validating the willingness to self-censor
scale: Individual differences in the effect of the climate of opinion on opinion expression,
pp. 443–55.
• Henson, J; Denker, K (2007), "I'm a Republican, but please don't tell: an application of
spiral of silence theory to perceptions of classroom climate", Conference Papers, National
Communication Association, 1.
• Hiltz, SR; Johnson, K; Turoff, M (1986), "Experiments in group decision making:
Communication process and outcome in face-to-face versus computerized conferences",
Human Communication Research, 13 (2): 225–52, doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1986.tb00104.x.
• Huang, Huiping (2005), "A Cross-Cultural Test of the Spiral of Silence", International
Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17 (3): 1–25, doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh065.
• Kant, Immanuel (1781), Critique of Pure Reason
• Kiesler, S; Siegel, J; McQuire, TW (1984), "Social psychological aspects of computer-
mediated communication", American Psychologist, 39 (10): 1123–34, doi:10.1037/0003-
066x.39.10.1123.
• Kraut, RE; Patterson, M; Lundmark, V; Kiesler, S; Mukhopadhyay, T; Scherlis, W (1998),
"Internet paradox: A social technology that reduces social involvement and psychological
well-being?", American Psychologist, 53 (9): 1017–32, doi:10.1037/0003-066x.53.9.1017,
PMID 9841579.
• Liu, X; Fahmy, S (2009), Testing the spiral of silence in the virtual world: Monitoring
opinion-climate online and individuals' willingness to express personal opinions in online
versus offline settings (conference paper), 1, International Communication Association,
p. 36.
• McDevitt, M; Kiousis, S; Wahl-Jorgensen, K (2003), "Spiral of moderation: Opinion
expression in computer-mediated discussion", International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, 15 (4): 454–70, doi:10.1093/ijpor/15.4.454.
• McKenna, KYA; Bargh, JA (1998), "Coming out in the age of the Internet: Identity
"demarginalization" through virtual group participation", Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 75 (3): 681–94, doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.681.
• Miller, K (2005), Communication theories: perspectives, processes, and contexts (2nd ed.),
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
• Moody, EJ (2001), "Internet use and its relationship to loneliness", CyberPsychology &
Behavior, 4 (3): 393–401, doi:10.1089/109493101300210303, PMID 11710265.
• Morris, M; Ogan, C (2002), McQauil, D (ed.), "The internet as mass medium", Reader in
Mass Communication Theory, London: Sage.
• Moy, P; Domke, D; Stamm, K (2001), "The spiral of silence and public opinion on
affirmative action", Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78 (1): 7–25,
doi:10.1177/107769900107800102.
• Neill, Shelly (May 2009), "The Alternate Channel: How Social Media is Challenging the
Spiral of Silence Theory in GLBT Communities of Color" (PDF), American University,
Washington, DC, retrieved 2012-04-24
• Noelle-Neumann, Elisabeth (1974), "The spiral of silence: a theory of public opinion",
Journal of Communication, 24 (2): 43–51, doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1974.tb00367.x.
• ——— (1977), "Turbulences in the climate of opinion: Methodological applications of the
spiral of silence theory", Public Opinion Quarterly, 41 (2): 143–58, doi:10.1086/268371.
• O'Connor, RD (1969), "Modification of social withdrawal through symbolic modeling",
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 2 (1): 15–22, doi:10.1901/jaba.1969.2-15,
PMC 1311030, PMID 16795196.
• ——— (1972), "Relative efficacy of modeling, shaping, and the combined procedures for
modification of social withdrawal", Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 79 (3): 327–34,
doi:10.1037/h0033226, PMID 5033375.
• O'Hara, K (2002), "The Internet: A tool for democratic pluralism?", Science as Culture, 11
(2): 287–98, doi:10.1080/09505430220137298.
• O'Sullivan, PB (1995), "Computer networks and political participation: Santa Monica's
teledemocracy project", Applied Communication Research, 23 (2): 93–107,
doi:10.1080/00909889509365417.
• Page, BI (1996), Who deliberates? Mass Media in Modern Democracy, Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
• Rheingold, H (1993), The virtual community. Homesteading on the electronic frontier,
Reading.
• Rice, RE; Williams, F (1984), "Theories old and new: The study of new media", in Rice, RE
(ed.), The new media: Communication, research, and technology, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage,
pp. 55–80.
• Ross, C (2007), Considering and communicating more world views: New directions for the
spiral of silence (conference papers), 1, National Communication Association.
• Sassenberg, K (2002), "Common bond and common identity groups on the Internet:
Attachment and normative behaviors in on-topic and off-topic chats", Group Dynamics:
Theory, Research, and Practice, 6 (1): 27–37, doi:10.1037/1089-2699.6.1.27.
• Scheufele, Dietram A; Moy, P (2000), "Twenty-five years of the spiral of silence: A
conceptual review and empirical outlook", International Journal of Public Opinion
Research, 12 (1): 3–28, doi:10.1093/ijpor/12.1.3, ISSN 0954-2892.
• ——— (2007), "Opinion climates, spirals of silence, and biotechnology: Public opinion as a
heuristic for scientific decision making", in Brossard, D; Shanahan, J; Nesbit, TC (eds.),
The public, the media, and agricultural biotechnology: An international casebook,
Cambridge, MA: Oxford University Press, pp. 231–41
• Schmierback, M; Boyle, MP; McLeod, DM (2005), "Civic attachment in the aftermath of
September 11", Mass Communication and Society, 8 (4): 323–46,
doi:10.1207/s15327825mcs0804_3.
• Shanahan, J; Scheufele, Dietram A; Yang, Fang; Hizi, S (2004), "Cultivation and spiral of
silence effects:the case of smoking", Mass Communication and Society, 7 (4): 413–28,
doi:10.1207/s15327825mcs0704_3.
• Short, J; Williams, E; Christie, B (1976), The social psychology of telecommunications, New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
• Sleek, S (1998), "Isolation increases with Internet use", APA Monitor, 29 (1): 1.
• Spencer, Anthony; Stephen, Croucher (2008), "Basque Nationalism and the Spiral of
Silence", International Communication Gazette, 70 (2): 137–53,
doi:10.1177/1748048507086909.
• Sproull, L; Kiesler, S (1992), Connections: New ways of working in the networked
organization, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
• Stromer-Galley, J (2002), "New voices in the political sphere: A comparative analysis of
interpersonal and online political talk", Javnost/The Public, 9 (2): 23–42,
doi:10.1080/13183222.2002.11008798.
• Wallace, P (1999), The psychology of the Internet, Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University
Press.
• Wanta, W; Dimitrova, D (2000), Chatrooms and the spiral of silence: An examination of
online discussions during the final 1996 U.S. presidential debate (paper), Acapulco, MX:
The International Communication Association.
• Warren, ME (2001), "What should we expect from more democracy? Radically democratic
responses to politics", Political Theory, 24 (2): 241–70,
doi:10.1177/0090591796024002004.
• Williams, E (1977), "Experimental comparison of face-to-face and mediated
communication: A review", Psychological Bulletin, 84 (5): 963–76, doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.84.5.963.
• Witschge, T (2002), Online Deliberation: Possibilities of the Internet for deliberative
democracy (paper), Nijmegen, NL: The Euricom Colloquium Electronic Networks &
Democratic Engagement.