• Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann claims that people’s assessment of the political climate and

forecast of future trends are early, reliable indicators of what will happen in an election.

• Noelle-Neumann’s spiral of silence explains the growth and spread of public opinion,
which is a powerful force.

• She defines public opinion as “attitudes one can express in public without isolating
oneself.” (Noelle-Neumann, 1984)

• The spiral of silence refers to the increasing pressure people feel to conceal their views
when they think they are in the minority (Noelle-Neumann,1974, 1984, 1991) > the mass
media devise a narrow docket of concerns that functions to favor a selected set of
proposals that enter public discourse while simultaneously excluding rival positions.
Individuals immersed / consonant climate of opinion >> fear of isolation/ a desire to elude
negative social sanctions

• The fear stimulates people to observe the media for cues about the majority’s position on
debatable issues of the day
• Solomon Asch
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYIh4MkcfJA&feature=PlayList&p=4FEDA0B1DFD77298&index=7

• Stanley Milgram
• http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=1798620933

• the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1988, 1991) > when individuals are faced
with risky situations, they consider the possible reactions of family, friends, and
others before deciding on which behaviors to pursue.
• research inspired by the spiral of silence, which focuses on normative influence,
has shown that people tend to moderate their speech—a kind of behavior—to
match their perceptions of majority opinion rather than risk being isolated for
expressing unpopular views.
• 1965 election (Germany)
• The two major parties (Christian Democrats and Social
Democrats) were locked in a dead heat
• Last minute swing (Noelle-Neumann rejects the hypothesis that people
conform out of a desire to identify with a winner)
• 1972 election (Germany)
• The two major parties were racing neck-to-neck
• Last minute swing
• 1976: Smoking in the presence of nonsmokers
• A field experiment
o the control group:
o 44% : In the presence of non-smokers one should refrain from smoking.
To smoke would be inconsiderate; for those who do not smoke, it is very
unpleasant to have to breathe smoke- filled air (+ 45% were willing to
have a conversation)
o 44%: One can't expect people to refrain from smoking just because
nonsmokers are present; it’s really not that much of an annoyance to
them anyway. (+ 43% were willing to have a conversation)
o the experiment group (the train experiment)
+ “one would refrain from
smoking in the presence of
nonsmokers”
Only 23% of the smoking
defenders were willing to
have a conversation about
that.
 membership in the European Union
 assessment of campaign candidates
 changes of office
 abortion
 capital punishment
 environmental activism
 gay marriage
 gay bullying
 genetically modified food
 affirmative action
 immigration
• Private opinions (we keep to ourselves)
• Public opinions (we feel safe to share with others)
• Public Opinion – related to the climate of opinions (people
have a sixth sense that allow them to evaluate this climate)
• Majority – vocal opinion (a symbolic majority) (people
become more talkative)
• Minority – silent opinion
• Vote intentions vs. vote expectations

• Bandwagon effect vs. last minute swing

• People who would talk no matter what (the hard core) > attitude strength
(the extent to which an attitude is resistant to change and predictive of
behavior): extremity, intensity, personal interest or issue importance, certainty

• Changes in the climate of opinions

• Forming the spiral of silence: people are more afraid of being isolated than of
being wrong (the group pressure)
• Fear of isolation catches those in the minority in a spiral of silence.

• People sense a slight discrepancy between their position and prevailing public
opinion.

• Minority opinion holders begin to withdraw from sharing their opinion.

• They sense a widening gap and draw back from public scrutiny.

• The spiral becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

• The spiral of silence theory revolves around the public discussion of a morally
controversial or value-laden issue
• Mass media can expand or inhibit the spiral
• People perceive media opinions as dominant opinions (discussion)
• Mass media can create a false majority illusion
• Mass media can reverse a spiral process through giving the “hard core”
a voice
• Media accelerate the muting of the minority in the spiral of silence
• Television is particularly influential because of its omni-presence, its
single point of view, and the constant repetition of its message
• Question(s) measuring the opinion of interviewee on a controversial subject
(what he/she thinks of…)

• Question(s) regarding what the interview believes of what other people think
about the subject (majority)

• Question(s) regarding the possible trends of future evolution of opinions

• Question(s) regarding the willingness of the interviewee to publicly participate

in supporting his/her own opinion (ex: in a public debate, wear distinctive
signs, signing petitions etc.)
• Critics question the assumption that fear of isolation is the cause of people’s silence. (people may
just not have an opinion)

• The theory relies on the hypothetical train/plane test to measure willingness to speak rather than
use the observation of actual behavior.

• While the spiral of silence focuses on national climate of public opinion, other studies have
indicated that the opinion of one’s own reference group or microclimate of family and friends is
most closely linked to one’s willingness to speak out.
• The theory is ignoring aspects as: positive motives for speaking out; deficient conceptualization
of hardcore and avant garde groups; alternative explanations such as bandwagon and projection;
the consonance of media content and the operation of selectivity processes

• Recent studies suggest that the spiral of silence is alive and well in the twenty-first century
 The new media landscape has raised the potential for exposure to congruent news to
unprecedented heights (Stroud, 2008; Webster, 2011) > selective exposure > niche
media = one’s perception of the opinion climate may become biased/ impression of
false public consensus

 The exposure to a biased sample of exemplars renders similar opinions cognitively

more accessible and highly salient > Cognitive availability of an opinion is mistakenly
interpreted as an indicator of its frequency among the public

 The exposure to congruent partisan media > will contribute to political participation
by influencing perceptions of public opinion

 During the 2008 U.S. election campaign, exposure to congruent news increased
participation/involvement in online political discussion whereas exposure to
incongruent news decreased it (Dilliplane, 2011; Brundidge et al., 2014, Stroud, 2011)
 Online discussion takes place in echo chambers > people in online debates
selectively avoid opposing arguments, and therefore face little resistance >
assumed to reinforce and ultimately polarize political views

 A congruent opinion climate (i.e., friendly) condition had a larger effect among
individuals with high levels of willingness to self-censor

 The online environment also increases the possibility of discussing with people
who hold considerably different points of view

 Online debates - the logic of ‘trench warfare’, in which opinions are reinforced
through contradiction as well as confirmation / prior attitudes
 people are more willing to express a minority opinion in a virtual chat than face to
face (anonymity), (eg. Ho & McLeod, 2008)
 expected sanctions > less willing to express their opinion via social media than in
face-to-face situations (eg. Hampton et al., 2014)
 in contemporary SNSs where users commonly face a personally relevant
audience, people are prone to hold back their opinion as they expect losing
control over the reactions of their audience/ higher expectations of social
sanctions such as losing relationships or being negatively evaluated
 if Internet users are aware of a potential disinhibited behavior online (Rainie,
Lenhart, & Smith, 2012), they will be more reluctant to participate in controversial
discussions as they will fear being attacked
 the persistence of messages in online communication/ opinions are less
rectifiable > new concerns

 Facebook - a high identifiability of oneself > is supposed to be more threatening

(since one is more accountable for the minority opinion) / the more based upon
real-world anchored relationships, the more likely to include fear of isolation/
appearing unpopular or socially undesirable

 To explore > opinion expression avoidance strategies

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVeGBInv-pI