Same Spiral,Different Day? Testing the Spiral of Silence Across Issue Types

Abstract

Although research has tested the spiral of silence theory using a variety of issues, little attention is paid to how the nature of the issues affects the spiral of silence processes. This study adopts issue typologies provided by Yeric and Todd and recommended by Salmon and Glynn to test the theory using three issues: immigration (transitory), gay marriage (emerging), and abortion (enduring). Using a nationwide survey of Facebook users (N = 1,046), this study investigates how the nature of issues influences the dynamics of the spiral of silence processes. Results identify issue-specific differences, especially regarding the opinion congruency. Theoretical implications for future tests of the spiral of silence theory and public opinion research are discussed.

Keywords

spiral of silence issue contexts social media opinion congruency fear of isolation willingness to self-censor

The spiral of silence theory revolves around the public discussion of a morally controversial or value-laden issue (Noelle-Neumann, 1993; Scheufele, 2007). Such issues have the ability to trigger a threat of isolation. Otherwise, there is “no pressure of public opinion and therefore no spiral of silence” (Noelle-Neumann, 1993, p. 200).

Existent research has tested the theory using a variety of morally laden issues. However, few investigations test multiple issues in the same study, and little scholarly attention has been paid to how the nature of issues influences the spiral of silence processes. Testing the spiral of silence theory in multiple issue contexts simultaneously is crucial because one desirable criterion of a good theory is to provide plausible explanations. The better the explanation, the higher a theory’s explanatory power. A related feature is the range of phenomena the theory helps explain; the more phenomena a theory encompasses, the better the theory (Chaffee & Berger, 1987; Shoemaker, Tankard, & Lasorsa, 2004). To overcome this limitation, the current study adopts the issue typology of Yeric and Todd (1989) recommended by Salmon and Glynn (2009) to test the spiral of silence theory. Yeric and Todd’s typologies identify three issue types, including enduring issues, which remain in the spotlight for an extended period of time; emerging issues, while new to the public, have the potential to remain in the spotlight and become enduring issues; and transitory issues, which do not remain in the public consciousness very long but return from time to time.

Specifically, the current study utilizes a nationwide Internet survey of Facebook users to investigate the dynamics of the spiral of silence processes using three morally based issues fitting each issue type, including immigration (transitory), gay marriage (emerging), and abortion (enduring). Results of this analysis identify issue-specific differences, thus expanding the theoretical scope of the spiral of silence theory by strengthening its explanatory power.

Literature Review

Spiral of Silence Theory

Proposed by Noelle-Neumann (1974, 1993), the spiral of silence theory explains the process by which individuals in majority and minority opinion groups choose whether to express their opinion on a controversial and morally laden issue. Driven by the inherent fear of isolation, individuals constantly survey their environment. Through interpersonal communication and exposure to media, individuals form a judgment about public opinion and use that information to predict how others would react if they express or conceal their opinions. Those in the majority are more likely to speak their opinions in public, whereas those in the minority will remain silent out of fear of social isolation. Therefore, majority opinions are highlighted further and gain strength, and the minority opinions are increasingly obscure, which results in a spiraling process.

Over the last 40 years, the theory has been subjected to tests using different methodological approaches, focal variables, and populations. Overall, meta-analysis of published reports indicates modest support for the theory, as a positive correlation was identified between perceived opinion support and willingness to speak out (Glynn, Hayes, & Shanahan, 1997). Recently, there have been solid developments in the conceptualization and measurement of the phenomenon, such as the willingness to self-censor scale (Hayes, Glynn, & Shanahan, 2005a, 2005b) and the trait-based measure of the fear of social isolation (Hayes, Matthes, & Eveland, 2013). These related, yet conceptually distinct, concepts allow for explaining underlying psychological mechanisms. Increasingly, applications of the theory have also moved beyond traditional face-to-face contexts. For instance, empirical support has been identified in tests of the theory in chat rooms (Wanta & Dimitrova, 2000), online message boards (Yun & Park, 2011), and social networking sites (SNSs) such as Facebook (Gearhart & Zhang, 2014, 2015).

Issue topics

Since Noelle-Neumann’s (1974) seminal work in an election campaign context, testing of the spiral of silence theory has been applied to various political issues, such as the assessment of campaign candidates (Glynn & McLeod, 1984), changes of office (Neuwirth, 2000), debates (Wanta & Dimitrova, 2000), membership in the European Union (Matthes, Morrison, & Schemer, 2010), or the declaration of an official language (Lin & Salwen, 1997). A variety of other issues have also been used in empirical tests, such as affirmative action (Hayes, 2007; Moy, Domke, & Stamm, 2001), abortion (McDevitt, Kiousis, & Wahl-Jorgensen, 2003; Salmon & Neuwirth, 1990; Yun & Park, 2011), capital punishment (Hayes, 2007; Oshagan, 1996), environmental activism (Hayes, 2007), gay marriage (Ho & McLeod, 2008), genetically modified food (Kim, 2012; Scheufele, Shanahan, & Lee, 2001), and interracial marriage (Lee, Detenber, Willnat, Aday, & Graf, 2004).

However, it is difficult to assume that testing of a wide range of controversial issues will produce similar results. Salmon and Neuwirth (1990) postulated that one’s opinion expression may be a function of the issues themselves. As such, it would seem appropriate to test multiple issues using the same instrument to examine issue-specific differences on opinion expression. To date, few investigations have included multiple issue topics in the same study. In one instance, Salmon and Oshagan (1990) tested the theory using two issues: pornography regulation and mandatory seat-belt use. Results showed that perceptions of opinion congruence, which influences willingness to speak out, varied by issue. The newer issue (i.e., seat-belt use) was found to have greater levels of perceived opinion congruity than the more enduring issue (i.e., pornography), clearly indicating the issue-specific nature of opinion climates (Salmon & Oshagan, 1990).

In W. Lee et al.’s (2004) test of two different issues, findings indicated that not only do results vary across countries but also among the issues within each country. For example, future opinion congruency was negatively related to speaking out about equal rights for homosexuality among Singaporean respondents, but not when testing the issue of interracial marriage. This discrepancy was attributed to the historical context of the issue within the country.

Hayes (2007) provided simultaneous analysis of the spiral of silence theory across three issues, including the death penalty, affirmative action, and extreme environmental protests (e.g., destruction of an SUV). Results showed that participant responses varied by issue, independent of the climate of opinion, indicating that the issue tested may result in differential effects.

Issue typologies

The issue at the center of investigation is important because the spiral of silence theory only works when discussion revolves around a morally controversial issue (Scheufele, 2007). A wide range of issues fit these broad criteria, and scholars have offered thought on how to further distinguish issue types. More recently, Salmon and Glynn (2009) suggested the use of typologies offered by Yeric and Todd (1989), which differentiate enduring, emerging, and transitory issues. Enduring issues are those which have long remained in the public eye. Emerging issues are relatively new and show tendencies to remain in the limelight and potentially become enduring issues.

Transitory issues are those that fail to remain in the public eye continually but reemerge. Unfortunately, transitory issues lack identification. The only example provided by Yeric and Todd (1989) concerns the Panama Canal, which never regained public visibility after the Panamanians were granted control of the canal. However, this does give indication that political and social issues, which reemerge alongside elections, political shifts, and diplomatic affairs, may fit this category.

Salmon and Glynn (2009) believe that use of these typologies could be “a useful conceptual foundation for augmenting the model’s explanatory power” (p. 161). The issues used in the current study were carefully chosen to meet the criteria of the spiral of silence theory (Noelle-Neumann, 1974, 1993) while also fitting the three-issue typologies discussed above in contemporary American society. These issues are abortion (enduring), gay marriage (emerging), and immigration (transitory). Each issue is highly visible and has a moral component.

Enduring issue: Abortion

Abortion fits the enduring issue typology. It is defined here as the practice of deliberately ending an established pregnancy. Between the late 1960s and early 1970s, abortion gained exposure through news media coverage, which encouraged public awareness (Yeric & Todd, 1989). Abortion has been practiced since ancient times, and although it was legalized in the United States after the 1973 Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision, the controversy and the debate remain complex. The strong emotions associated with this issue have caused it to remain in the public eye (Yeric & Todd, 1989). In the United States, opinions are generally distinguished as one of two polarized positions, either pro-life or pro-choice. Although these loaded terms appeal to emotion, they are commonly used in the American lexicon and are used here to identify the two sides of the debate.

It should be noted that Yeric and Todd (1989) originally categorized abortion as an emerging issue. Although this appears to be a miscategorization, it is understandable considering the state of public debate when categorized in the text. Enduring issues are those which are capable of remaining in the public eye over time, and according to Salmon and Glynn (2009), emerging issues have the ability to become enduring. More than 40 years after Roe v. Wade, public opinion remains deeply divided, indicating that this issue will continue to be a source of controversy demanding attention in the national spotlight (Lipka, 2015).

Abortion in spiral of silence research

The abortion issue has been used to test the spiral of silence theory. Salmon and Neuwirth (1990) found that personal concern and issue knowledge were positively related to speaking out on this topic. However, opinion climate did not predict outcomes. Authors claimed that the issue itself created many difficulties because of the deep issue involvement, which may make individuals less susceptible to the spiral of silence.

Studies investigating the spiral of silence in computer-mediated environments have also used abortion as the central issue. In a chat-room setting, McDevitt et al. (2003) found that individuals avoided stating their true opinions on abortion in the face of opposition. Later work found that individuals were also less willing to post online messages expressing minority opinions (Yun & Park, 2011). Such work provides empirical support for spiral of silence in an online context while utilizing the abortion issue.

Emerging issue: Gay marriage

Appropriate for the emerging issue typology is gay marriage, an issue gaining attention among the American public and demonstrating the ability to remain visible. As used here, gay marriage refers to all forms of same-sex marriage. As marriage is often restricted to the union of two opposite-sex individuals by aspects of religion and law, gay marriage has been a significant source of controversy (Lloyd & Yeilding, 2008). Media attention on this issue has steadily increased since the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples had the right to marry (Pan, Meng, & Zhou, 2010). This unique debate involves aspects of morality and equality. On one side, supporters believe that homosexuals are entitled to equal rights as the heterosexual couples. Those opposed believe that it would be detrimental to the institution of marriage and there is a moral obligation to protect it.

Reassignment of abortion as an enduring issue, which was originally categorized as an emerging issue (Yeric & Todd, 1989), required consideration of the public climate. Similar consideration indicates that gay marriage warrants classification as an emerging issue. Although gay marriage has been a point of public debate for some time, the first U.S. laws only began to appear in the 1990s (“A Timeline of Same-Sex,” 2014). Polling data have recently indicated that more Americans support gay marriage than oppose (Morin, 2013). However, polls are plagued by social desirability bias, indicating “that polls in recent years may be overstating levels of national support for same-sex marriage” and Americans remain divided on the issue (Powell, 2013, p. 1066). As this issue will remain a point of public debate, gay marriage aligns with Salmon and Glynn’s (2009) assertion that this emerging issue has the potential to become enduring in the future.

Gay marriage in spiral of silence research

Issue topics related to homosexuality have found their way into spiral of silence research. Related topics have included equal rights for homosexuals (W. Lee et al., 2004; Willnat, Lee, & Detenber, 2002), homosexuals in the military (Gonzenbach, King, & Jablonski, 1999), and the spiral of silence in organizations resulting from differences in sexual orientation (Bowen & Blackmon, 2003). Specifically using the topic of gay marriage, Ho and McLeod (2008) used the theory to test willingness to engage in either face-to-face or online discussions. Results found greater willingness in online contexts, supporting the existence of a spiral of silence effect.

Transitory issue: Immigration

The issue of immigration, specifically the DREAM Act, fits the transitory issue typology because this issue becomes highly visible among U.S. citizens during elections when policy changes are proposed or public outcry draws media attention. That is, although the issue can be somewhat dormant at times, it regularly remerges in the public eye.

Due to the wide ranging nature of the immigration issue, the current study focuses exclusively on the DREAM Act. Though there have been different variations, the DREAM Act is a legislative proposal to provide undocumented immigrants the opportunity to receive permanent residency if they lawfully meet conditional requirements toward education or military service. The debate has become so polarized that the multiple attempts to pass such comprehensive legislation have failed (Abella, 2012). Generally, supporters believe that certain law-abiding undocumented immigrants, especially those who entered the country as children, should be allowed to stay. This is seen as a humane alternative to deportation or an inability to obtain a college education. Opponents believe that the plan rewards those who have broken the law while allowing undocumented immigrants to burden the economy by taking jobs from U.S. citizens (B. Lee, 2012).

Immigration in spiral of silence research

Immigration issues have been used in tests of the spiral of silence theory. For instance, Matthes et al. (2010) focused on a national referendum concerning the naturalization of Swiss immigrants. Results offered empirical support as minority opinion holders were less likely to express their views, especially if they did not hold their opinion with much certainty. Louis, Duck, Terry, and Lalonde (2010) investigated the spiral of silence using the topic of Asian immigration in Australia. Similar to other studies, issue importance and perceived issue support were found to predict willingness to speak out.

Online spiral of silence research

Spiral of silence research has primarily tested the theory in face-to-face contexts. Abilities afforded by the Internet, such as those that allow people to be cloaked in anonymity, present reasons why some have thought the spiral of silence “may have little predictive power in the new media environment” (Metzger, 2009, p. 570). However, this characteristic is not applicable to all new media contexts, which led Metzger (2009) to propose that a spiral of silence effect may exist within certain online contexts such as Facebook because this online network is primarily composed of one’s real-world offline connections. As such, individuals are aware of the possibility to appear socially undesirable and have been found to engage in impression management (boyd, 2008; boyd & Ellison, 2007).

More recently, scholars have ventured into applying the theory to various computer-mediated communication environments. For example, examination of chat-room content during a 1996 U.S. presidential debate found postings for the winning candidate increased, while postings decreased for the losing candidate (Wanta & Dimitrova, 2000). Using an experimentally manipulated chat room, McDevitt et al. (2003) found minority opinion holders spoke up more often but tended to conceal true opinions by offering neutral comments. These results provided evidence for the silencing effect in online contexts, while also showcasing the importance of the opinion climate in online opinion expression behaviors.

Although empirical applications of the theory to online contexts are limited, results generally support notions that the spiral of silence theory is alive and well in online settings. However, certain online environments may be more appropriate settings for testing the theory. Metzger (2009) specified SNSs as appropriate mediums for applying the theory because they are based upon real-world relationships that may invoke a fear of social isolation. To date, limited work testing the spiral of silence theory in a SNS setting has provided empirical support. For example, Gearhart and Zhang (2014) found that traditional variables tested in offline settings, such as willingness to self-censor, predicted opinion expression or concealment in these online environments.

Beyond identifying support for the use of traditional variables in online social media contexts, Gearhart and Zhang’s (2014, 2015) work has identified that posting true opinions and refraining from posting comments on a SNS setting are the SNS equivalent measures of speaking out and remaining silent in face-to-face contexts. Given Metzger’s (2009) theorizing, coupled with the support identified in existent tests of the spiral of silence in online environments, the current examination of issue differences occurs in the online context of Facebook. The literature review above leads to the following research questions and hypotheses:

Research Questions and Hypotheses

Dependent Variable: Posting one’s true opinions on Facebook

Research Question 1 (RQ1): How do Facebook activities relate to posting one’s true opinion?

Research Question 2a (RQ2a): How does congruency of opinion with media relate to posting true opinions?

Research Question 2b (RQ2b): How does congruency of opinion with friends and family relate to posting true opinions?

Research Question 2c (RQ2c): How does opinion congruency with the nation relate to posting true opinions?

Hypothesis 1 (H1): Opinion congruency with the future opinion of the nation will be positively related to posting one’s true opinion on emerging issues more than on other issues.

Dependent Variable: Refrain from commenting on Facebook

Research Question 3 (RQ3): How do Facebook activities relate to refraining from posting comments?

Research Question 4a (RQ4a): How does congruency of opinion with media relate to refraining from posting?

Research Question 4b (RQ4b): How does congruency of opinion with friends and family relate to refraining from posting comments?

Research Question 4c (RQ4c): How does opinion congruency with the nation differentially relate to refraining from posting comments?

Hypothesis 2 (H2): Opinion congruency with the future opinion of the nation will be negatively related to refraining from posting on emerging issues more than others.

Method

Participants and Procedures

Respondents were recruited by Toluna, a professional survey company contracted to collect a sample of U.S. adult Facebook users. Fielded for 1 week from February 19, 2013 to February 26, 2013, responses were collected using an online survey hosted on Qualtrics. A total of 1,871 people responded to the survey solicitation. Incomplete questionnaires were removed, yielding a final data set of 1,046 responses. Qualified participants began answering questions about their Facebook use, including number of friends and questions about their experiences in the network, followed by questions focusing on psychological attributes. Next, using an embedded experimental manipulation (e.g., Hayes, 2007), participants were randomly assigned to one of the three issues and asked their opinion on the issue, how important the issue was to them personally, and how certain they were of their opinion. After indicating their own opinion, respondents were asked what opinion they felt dominated the media, their family and friends, the entire nation, and where opinion would be 10 years from now in order to construct congruency measures, the main predictor variable. Finally, the embedded manipulation then randomly assigned the participant to a hypothetical scenario featuring the same issue in either a hostile (i.e., incongruent opinion climate) or friendly (i.e., congruent opinion climate) condition. Embedding an experiment in a sample survey helps establish causal relationship, while the survey evidence increases the potency of the findings among non-psychologists who instinctively question the generalizability of laboratory findings (Krosnick, Lavrakas, & Kim, 2014).

The average respondent was 44.20 years old (SD = 15.81). On average, respondents completed between some college and a 2-year degree (M = 3.75, SD = 1.45) and were moderately conservative (1 = very conservative to 5 = very liberal; M = 2.94, SD = 1.03). The slim majority of respondents were female (50.8%). Respondents predominately reported race as Caucasian (76.3%), followed by Black/African American (10.5%) and other groups (13.3%). The average household income ranged from US$40,000 to less than US$60,000 (1 = less than US$20,000 to 10 = US$100,000 or more; M = 4.65, SD = 3.01).

Measures

Predictor variables

There are four types of independent variables: (a) psychological attributes, including willingness to self-censor, fear of isolation, attitude certainty, and issue importance; (b) Facebook use; (c) opinion congruency; and (d) demographics.

Willingness to self-censor

Borrowed from Hayes et al. (2005a, 2005b), this measure assesses willingness to withhold one’s true opinion from others. Respondents were asked to rate their level of agreement (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree) for eight statements: (a) “It is difficult for me to express my opinion if I think others won’t agree with what I say”; (b) “There have been many times when I have thought others around me were wrong but I didn’t let them know”; (c) “When I disagree with others, I’d rather go along with them than argue about it”; (d) “It is easy for me to express my opinion around others who I think will disagree with me”; (e) “I’d feel uncomfortable if someone asked my opinion and I knew that he or she wouldn’t agree with me”; (f) “I tend to speak my opinion only around friends or other people I trust”; (g) “It is safer to keep quiet than publicly speak an opinion that you know most others don’t share”; and (h) “If I disagree with others, I have no problem letting them know.” After reverse coding items d and h, they were combined to form an index (α = .82; M = 2.80, SD = 0.70).

Fear of isolation

This measure assesses cognitive responses to social isolation (Hayes et al., 2013; Matthes et al., 2012). Using a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), respondents were asked to rate their agreement for five statements: (a) “It is scary to think about not being invited to social gatherings by people I know”; (b) “One of the worst things that could happen to me is to be excluded by people I know”; (c) “It would bother me if no one wanted to be around me”; (d) “I dislike feeling left out of social functions, parties, or other social gatherings”; and (e) “It is important to me to fit into the group I am with.” Items were summed into an index (α = .88; M = 3.26, SD = 0.93).

Issue importance

Perceived issue importance was gauged by asking respondents “How important is the issue of _________ to you personally?” (1 = not important at all to 10 = very important). The issue participants randomly encounter filled the blank (M = 6.13, SD = 2.85).

Attitude certainty

Respondents were asked about the level of certitude they had in their opinion with a single item asking “How certain are you on your opinion on the issue of ________?” (1 = not at all certain to 10 = very certain). The issue presented in the question varied depending on which issue context the participant was exposed to (M = 8.11, SD = 2.45).

Facebook property and activities include three variables: number of Facebook friends, agreement on Facebook, and disagreement on Facebook.

Number of Facebook friends

Respondents were asked how many Facebook friends they had on their personal account (1 = less than 100 to 6 = more than 1,000). On average, respondents reported having between 100 and 249 Facebook friends (M = 2.01, SD = 1.25).

Agreement on Facebook

Borrowed from Pew Research Center’s (2012) Search, Social Networks, and Politics survey, this item was used to assess the climate of the social network site environment each respondent has experienced. Respondents were asked how frequently they agreed with posts (e.g., status updates and comments) made by their Facebook friends (1 = never to 5 = all of the time; M = 3.27, SD = 0.76).

Disagreement on Facebook

Also borrowed from Pew Research Center (2012), two questions measured the negative climate respondents encountered on Facebook. The first asked how frequently users disagreed with posts made by Facebook friends. The second asked how frequently respondents received strong negative reactions to the content they posted (1 = never to 5 = all of the time). The two items were subjected to Pearson’s correlation (r = .44, p < .001) and found to have moderate to substantial relationship (Weaver, 2003). The two items combined to form an index representing disagreement on Facebook (M = 2.14, SD = 0.92).

Own opinion

After being introduced to their assigned issue, respondents were asked which side of the two polarized views on the issue they agreed. Limited response categories were intended to acquire a definite issue stance. For abortion, response options included 1 = pro-choice (49.7%), 2 = pro-life (40.4%), and 3 = don’t know (9.9%). For gay marriage, response options included 1 = pro-gay marriage (48.7%), 2 = anti-gay marriage (39.8%), and 3 = don’t know (11.5%). For DREAM Act, response options included 1 = pro-DREAM Act (49.4%), 2 = anti-DREAM Act (32.2%), and 3 = don’t know (18.4%). Having participants self-classify their opinions allowed for constructing four measures of opinion congruency.

Media congruency

This perceptual-based assessment of dominant opinions in the media asks respondents, “Thinking about all of the different times you have seen this issue discussed in the media, which side of the debate do you think dominates in media coverage?” Respondents’ self-classification of their own opinions was compared with this assessment to determine whether their opinion is congruent or incongruent with the opinion they perceive to be dominating in the media and was dummy coded (0 = incongruent, 1 = congruent).

Opinion congruency

Measuring the opinion climate, three questions asked respondents about their perception of others’ opinions, including (a) friends and family, (b) the nation, and (c) the future nation. Focusing on the issue the respondent’s scenario would discuss, participants placed these three groups on one polarizing side of the debate. For example, in the abortion scenario, the following three questions were asked: (a) If you had to guess about the majority of your family and friends, how would you classify their opinion on abortion? (b) If you had to guess about the majority of people in the country, how would you classify their opinion on abortion? (c) If you had to guess, how would you classify the opinions of the nation on abortion 10 years from now? Each participant’s self-classification was compared with these assessments to determine whether their opinion is congruent or incongruent with the opinion they perceive to be held by the three reference groups and dummy coded (0 = incongruent, 1 = congruent).

Dependent variables

Two dependent variables were the SNS equivalent measures of speaking out and remaining silent in offline contexts: posting true opinions on Facebook and refraining from posting a Facebook comment.

Posting true opinions

Measuring speaking out in the SNS environment, respondents were exposed to either a hostile or friendly scenario and asked to indicate their likelihood (1 = very unlikely to 7 = very likely) of posting their true opinion on the Facebook discussion encountered (M = 4.48, SD = 1.87).

Refraining from posting

Measuring remaining silent in the SNS environment, the measurement above was mirrored, and respondents were asked to indicate their likelihood of refraining from commenting on the discussion (M = 3.69, SD = 1.91).

Data Analysis Techniques

Hierarchical regression analyses were performed to answer the research questions and test the hypotheses of this study. Demographic variables were entered as the first block of the model, followed by the psychological attribute variables such as willingness to self-censor, fear of social isolation, issue importance, and attitude certainty. Facebook activities (number of Facebook friends, frequency of agreement with friend posts, and frequency of disagreement with friends posts). The final focal independent variables, opinion congruency variables (congruency with media, congruency with friends and family, congruency with the nation, and congruency with the future) were entered last.

Results

Dependent variable: Posting one’s true opinion

RQ1 examined the influence of Facebook activities on posting one’s true opinion. One’s number of Facebook friends did not influence posting one’s true opinions regardless of condition or issue. In hostile conditions, how frequently respondents encountered congenial Facebook content was a positive predictor of expressing one’s true opinion only on the enduring abortion issue (β = .24, p = .002). On the other hand, how frequently respondents encountered disagreeable Facebook content was a positive predictor of posting truthful opinions on the emerging gay marriage issue (β = .34, p < .001) and the transitory issue of immigration (β = .28, p < .001). In friendly conditions, how frequently Facebook users encountered agreeable Facebook content was a positive predictor of expressing one’s true opinion on both the enduring abortion issue (β = .15, p = .02) and the transitory immigration issue (β = .26, p = .003). On the other hand, how frequently respondents encountered disagreeable Facebook content was a positive predictor of posting truthful opinions only on the enduring abortion issue (β = .27, p = .02; see Table 1).

Table 1.

Hierarchical Regression Predicting Posting True Opinion in Hostile and Friendly Conditions.

	Posting true opinion
	AbortionHostile	Gay marriageHostile	ImmigrationHostile	AbortionFriendly	Gay marriageFriendly	ImmigrationFriendly
Demographics
Age	−.07	.07	−.08	−.02	−.23**	.01
Education	−.15	−.10	−.06	−.09	−.21**	.07
Ideology (liberal higher)	−.12	−.08	.03	.01	−.09	−.09
Race (Caucasian higher)	−.15*	−.11	−.14*	−.01	.00	−.13
Income	−.03	.03	.01	−.02	.07	−.14
Sex (female higher)	−.15*	−.09	.02	−.04	−.03	.07
Incremental R² (%)	9.6*	3.4	4.6	1.9	10.7**	6.3
Psychological attributes
Willingness to self-censor	−.26**	−.36***	−.41***	−.30***	−.24**	−.18*
Fear of social isolation	.13	.21**	.06	.16*	.31***	.12
Issue importance	−.05	.10	.17*	.04	.09	.34***
Attitude certainty	.26**	.00	.13	.18*	.13	.04
Incremental R² (%)	15.0***	15.6***	25.4***	18.6***	16.7***	19.8***
Facebook property and activities
Number of Facebook friends	.05	.08	−.05	.04	.00	.07
Agreement on Facebook	.24**	−.01	.11	.15*	.13	.26***
Disagreement on Facebook	.06	.34***	.28***	.27**	.06	.03
Incremental R² (%)	6.9**	9.3***	7.9***	10.5***	2.8	7.0**
Opinion congruency
Media congruency	.21*	−.12	−.06	.09	.14	.11
Friends and family congruency	−.11	.03	.09	−.00	−.16*	−.03
Nation congruency	.07	−.09	−.00	.04	.01	−.06
Future congruency	−.17	.20*	−.04	−.04	.04	−.04
Incremental R² (%)	4.5*	2.8	0.9	0.7	3.5	1.3
Total R² (%)	36.0	31.1	38.8	31.8	33.7	34.4

Note. The beta weights are final standardized regression coefficients.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

RQ2a investigated the influence of the opinion congruency between respondents and their perception of the dominant media opinion on posting one’s true opinion. According to Table 1, congruency of opinion with the media was only a positive predictor of posting true opinions on the enduring abortion issue under hostile conditions (β = .21, p = .01).

RQ2b examined the influence of the opinion congruency with friends and families on posting their true opinions. As seen in Table 1, opinion congruency with friends and family was only found to be a negative predictor of posting truthful opinions when discussing the emerging gay marriage issue under friendly conditions (β = −.16, p = .04).

RQ2c explored the impact of the opinion congruency with the nation on posting true opinions. Results showed that the opinion congruency with the nation was not significantly related to posting truthful comments regardless of condition or issue being discussed (Table 1).

H1 stated that opinion congruency with the future opinion of the nation would be positively related to posting one’s true opinion on the emerging issue more than other issues. According to Table 1, under hostile conditions, future opinion congruency was a positive predictor of posting truthful opinions when discussing the emerging gay marriage issue (β = .20, p = .009). As the same relationship was not found under friendly conditions, H1 was partially supported.

Dependent variable: Refrain from posting

RQ3 investigated the effects of Facebook activities on refraining from commenting. As seen in Table 2, the number of Facebook friends one has did not influence refraining from commenting in friendly conditions regardless of the issues. In hostile conditions, one’s number of Facebook friends was only a positive predictor of refraining from commenting on the transitory issue of immigration (β = .19, p = .02).

Table 2.

Hierarchical Regression Predicting Refraining From Commenting in Hostile and Friendly Conditions.

	Refrain
	AbortionHostile	Gay marriageHostile	ImmigrationHostile	AbortionFriendly	Gay marriageFriendly	ImmigrationFriendly
Demographics
Age	−.11	−.04	.08	−.02	−.18	−.01
Education	.01	.09	−.03	.02	.03	−.01
Ideology (liberal higher)	.03	.02	.03	−.02	−.02	−.09
Race (Caucasian higher)	−.00	.09	.05	.08	.03	−.15*
Income	−.07	−.08	.06	.08	.05	.03
Sex (female higher)	.09	−.09	−.00	−.04	.01	.02
Incremental R² (%)	3.6	3.3	1.6	6.8	5.0	2.8
Psychological attributes
Willingness to self-censor	.48***	.47***	.52***	.49***	.23**	.54***
Fear of social isolation	.18*	.17*	−.07	.07	.04	.03
Issue importance	.07	−.08	.12	.05	−.14	.02
Attitude certainty	.07	−.02	−.01	−.03	.01	−.10
Incremental R² (%)	27.1***	29.4***	27.8***	28.2***	8.3**	34.4***
Facebook property and activities
Number of Facebook friends	.04	−.05	.19*	.04	−.05	−.07
Agreement on Facebook	−.07	−.01	−.04	.06	−.01	−.03
Disagreement on Facebook	−.10	−.02	.01	.16*	.10	.12
Incremental R² (%)	1.5	0.5	2.0	3.4*	0.9	1.3
Opinion congruency
Media congruency	.04	−.04	.12	.03	.02	−.10
Friends and family congruency	−.09	.06	.04	.04	.05	.21**
Nation congruency	.10	.11	−.15*	.01	−.09	.01
Future congruency	−.01	−.16*	.07	−.01	−.03	.09
Incremental R² (%)	1.3	2.8	3.0	0.2	1.0	5.1**
Total R² (%)	33.6	36.0	34.3	38.6	15.2	43.6

Note. The beta weights are final standardized regression coefficients.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

RQ4a examined the influence of the opinion congruency with the media on refraining from commenting. According to Table 2, opinion congruency with the media was not related to refraining from commenting regardless of issues or conditions.

RQ4b explored the impact of opinion congruency with friends and families on refraining from commenting. Findings revealed that opinion congruency with friends and families was a positive predictor of refraining from commenting only for transitory issue of immigration under hostile conditions (β = .21, p = .002).

RQ4c investigated the effects of the opinion congruency with the nation on refraining from commenting. Based on Table 2, opinion congruency with the nation was a negative predictor of refraining from commenting for the transitory issue of immigration under hostile conditions (β = −.15, p = .03). However, opinion congruency with the nation was not a significant predictor of refraining from commenting for other types of issues.

H2 predicted that opinion congruency with the future national opinion would be negatively related to refraining from commenting on the emerging issue more than other issues. According to Table 2, under hostile conditions, opinion congruency with future national opinion was a negative predictor of refraining from commenting only for the emerging issue of gay marriage (β = −.16, p = .04). Therefore, H2 was supported.

Discussion

One major goal of this study was to investigate the issue contexts of the spiral of silence theory, that is, which issues are more susceptible to spiral of silence under what conditions. While previous spiral of silence studies have tested various morally laden issues, this study is arguably the first empirical test across three issues based on Salmon and Glynn’s (2009) typologies: enduring (abortion), emerging (gay marriage), and transitory (immigration). Testing different issue types in one study matters because it indicates whether spiral of silence takes place across issues, works differentially between issues, or else, a crucial step to test the theory’s explanatory power and scope (Chaffee & Berger, 1987; Shoemaker et al., 2004).

The most telling findings regarding issue differences lie in varying forms of opinion congruency. That is, different forms of opinion congruency exhibited significant relationships with speaking out strategies for different types of issues. For example, solely on the issue of abortion, congruency of opinion with the media predicts individuals posting their true opinions in a hostile condition because both advocates and opponents feel strongly about the issue (Yeric & Todd, 1989). Despite the risk of social isolation, congruency with dominant views in the media embolden individuals to speak out (Noelle-Neumann, 1985). Results here support this notion. However, the influence appears to be exclusive to enduring issues such as abortion.

Similarly, types of opinion congruency exhibit relationships with different types of issues. Facebook users who perceive their opinions on gay marriage are congruent with the future opinion of the nation are more likely to post their true opinions and less likely to refrain from commenting in hostile situations. However, future opinion congruency is not found to be related to either enduring or transitory issues. The same relationships are not found for other types of opinion congruency. These findings are compatible with Ho and McLeod (2008) who used gay marriage as a crucial issue and found that future opinion trends are far more important than the immediate opinion climate for the gay marriage issue.

Compared with abortion and immigration, the gay marriage issue is unique due to its relationship to equality. While some people may not agree with gay marriage as an institution, people generally agree that homosexual couples deserve the same rights and benefits as the heterosexual couples. Public opinion polls indicate steady support for gays and lesbians to legally marry. According to the 2013 Pew Forum on Religion and Public life Survey, more people were found to support gay marriage (49%) than oppose (44%; Dimock, Doherty, & Kiley, 2013). Although these polls may overstate levels of support for same-sex marriage (Powell, 2013), the opinion on gay marriage was quite different in 2003 when Americans reportedly opposed gay marriage by a margin of 58% to 33% (Dimock et al., 2013).

In summary, findings strongly suggest the issue-specific nature of the influence of future opinion congruency. That is, future opinion congruency only affects an emerging issue such as gay marriage. When people sense that their opinion is gaining momentum, they are emboldened to speak up even when they find themselves in an incongruent opinion climate. This supports Noelle-Neumann’s (1974) claim that congruency with future opinion trend leads people to speak up in the face of adversity and not to remain silent in the same condition.

Findings concerning the influence of psychological or personality variables also suggest more differences than similarities among the three issue types. It is accepted that opinion expression depends on dimensions of attitude strength, such as issue importance and attitude certainty (Matthes et al., 2010). Findings here further support this contention with an important caveat that the influence of attitudinal factors varies across issues. For example, issue importance was identified as a meaningful predictor of speaking out on the topic of immigration in both conditions but not when discussion focused on other issues. This disparity may be explained by the immigration issue itself, which is the only tested issue that does not contain a religious component. Research has indicated that high attitude certainty may lead individuals to disregard the opinion climate when choosing to opine (Matthes et al., 2010). Results support this claim only when discussion focused on the enduring issue. More specifically, attitude certainty positively predicted speaking out on the abortion topic under both hostile and friendly situations but not on other issues. Taken together, these results indicate that the influence of attitude certainty and issue importance may be a function of issue type. These results suggest that while individual differences play an important role in the spiral of silence theory, especially in identification of the hard core, they function differently across issue typologies.

Results also show that there are issue similarities in spiral of silence. Those who are more willing to self-censor are less likely to post their truthful opinions on all three issues in both hostile and friendly situations. In addition, those who are willing to censor themselves are more likely to refrain from commenting on all three issues in both hostile and friendly conditions. This finding lends direct support for spiral of silence in the social media environment (Gearhart & Zhang, 2014). It also establishes willingness to self-censor as a driving force for spiral of silence regardless of the nature of issues across friendly and hostile conditions.

Noelle-Neumann’s theory has been criticized for assuming all except the hard core and avant-garde experience fear of isolation similarly and the concept has been rarely tested (e.g., Glynn et al., 1997). Evidence for the role of fear of isolation in this study provides a mixed bag. As predicted, fear of isolation is a positive predictor of refraining from posting a comment on issues of abortion and gay marriage in hostile conditions. However, contrary to what is hypothesized, it is also a positive predictor of posting true opinions across conditions when discussing gay marriage and abortion under friendly conditions. This may indicate that individuals with a high fear of being socially ostracized are inclined to share their opinions to demonstrate their allegiance with the majority, especially under friendly conditions when discussing abortion or gay marriage. Furthermore, individuals with high fear of isolation are willing to speak out in order to demonstrate loyalty to the group, but the same relationship is not true for willingness to self-censor; these results may further demonstrate the distinction Hayes et al. (2013) noted between the two concepts.

Taken together, findings of this study provide the first empirical evidence for the issue-specific nature of the influence exerted by willingness to self-censor and different types of opinion congruency across issues. These evidences demonstrate the robust explanatory power of the spiral of silence theory in the social media environment. Results suggest that issue differences do matter and appear to be related to types of opinion congruency. It can be concluded that issue differences are just one of many contextual influences on opinion expression in the spiral of silence theory.

SNS equivalent measurements of speaking out and remaining silent, posting true opinions and refraining from commenting on Facebook are proposed and validated as the alternative outcome variables appropriate for the SNS context. Findings of the study again demonstrate that spiral of silence is alive and well in the social media environment such as Facebook, which is geared primarily toward reinforcing relationships between users who know one another in offline settings (boyd & Ellison, 2007), compatible with results from a few studies that tested the theory in the SNS context (e.g., Gearhart & Zhang, 2014, 2015).

Inevitably, this study has a few limitations. One is the blurring nature of issues due to the time period of this study. Though this study provides initial evidence for issue-specific spiral of silence dynamics, the line between enduring, emerging, and transitory issues is not clear cut. Some issues such as gay marriage, considered an emerging issue at present, may transition into an enduring issue. Similarly, the current transitory issue of immigration may be considered an emerging issue in the future. In other words, issues are dynamic not static and are constantly evolving. In addition, in a global context, what is considered an enduring, emerging, or transitory issue in the United States may be an entirely different issue in another country and vice versa. Future research should delineate the nuances and country-specific contexts of different issues in the spiral of silence processes.

Methodologically, this study uses a cross-sectional design that is difficult to gauge the change in opinion in the spiraling process. Future studies should use panel designs to measure opinions at different time points to measure the influence of the dynamic climates of opinion. The use of a purposive sample could be a source of sampling bias. Although data reflect Facebook user statistics, a probability sample could benefit the ability of future work to make broader generalizations from results. Another drawback is the single-item measure of some variables. Future research should construct issue-driven social media use measures to gauge the nuances and lived experiences on SNSs. Furthermore, the use of the hypothetical scenarios may produce contrived situations and participants’ underestimation of risk associated with opinion expression. Future studies may utilize a controlled experiment to augment the internal validity of the study and establish the causal mechanisms underlying the spiral of silence processes.

Another limitation is the role of the SNS context of the study. Increasingly fragmented media environments and audiences threaten the original assumptions of the spiral of silence theory, namely fear of isolation and willingness to self-censor (Metzger, 2009). Future studies should examine both online and offline contexts and investigate the specific consequences of SNS contexts for offline situations. In other words, does spiral of silence behavior on SNSs matter in the real world?

Despite challenges and criticisms, the enduring appeal of the spiral of silence theory has continued to intrigue scholars (Petersen, 2012). Central to the theory is public discussion of a controversial issue (Noelle-Neumann, 1993), yet the importance of the issues at hand remains understudied. Results of this study have identified issue-specific differences and similarities in the dynamics of the spiral of silence theory and given credence to claims that perceived opinion of the media and that of reference groups are important conditions of the theory (e.g., Glynn & McLeod, 1985). As issues are dynamic, more attention should be paid to understanding future classification of issue typologies to enhance the explanatory power of the theory.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Sherice Gearhart is an assistant professor in the School of Communication at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. Her research interests include the role of new media in the public opinion process.

Weiwu Zhang is an associate professor in the College of Media and Communication at Texas Tech University. His research interests include the influence of new media on politics and political public relations.

References

Abella

(2012). The United States’ and Japan’s immigration dilemmas in comparative perspective. American Behavioral Scientist, 56, 1139-1156. doi:10.1177/0002764212441779

Bowen

Blackmon

(2003). Spirals of silence: The dynamic effects of diversity on organizational voice. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 1393-1417. doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00385

boyd

(2008). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. In Buckingham

(Ed.), Youth, identity, and digital media (pp. 119-142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

boyd

Ellison

(2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 210-230. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x

Chaffee

S. F.

Berger

C. R.

(1987). What communication scientists do. In Berger

C. R.

Chaffee

S. H.

(Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 99-122). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dimock

Doherty

Kiley

(2013). Growing support for gay marriage: Changed minds and changing demographics. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/3-20-13%20Gay%20Marriage%20Release.pdf

Gearhart

Zhang

(2014). Gay bullying and online opinion expression: Testing spiral of silence in the social media environment. Social Science Computer Review, 32, 18-36. doi:10.1177/0894439313504261

Gearhart

Zhang

(2015). “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, 208-213. doi:10.1089/cyber.2014.0443

Glynn

C. J.

Hayes

A. F.

Shanahan

(1997). Perceived support for one’s opinions and willingness to speak out: A meta-analysis of survey studies on the “spiral of silence.” Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 452-463. doi:10.1086/297808

10.

Glynn

C. J.

McLeod

J. M.

(1984). Public opinion du jour: An examination of the spiral of silence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 731-740. doi:10.1086/268879

11.

Glynn

C. J.

McLeod

J. M.

(1985). Implications for the spiral of silence theory for communication and public opinion research. In Sanders

K. R.

Kaid

L. L.

Nimmo

(Eds.), Political communication yearbook, 1984 (pp. 43-65). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

12.

Gonzenbach

W. J.

King

Jablonski

(1999). Homosexuals and the military: An analysis of the spiral of silence. Howard Journal of Communications, 10, 281-296. doi:10.1080/106461799246762

13.

Hayes

(2007). Exploring the forms of self-censorship: On the spiral of silence and the use of opinion expression avoidance strategies. Journal of Communication, 57, 785-802. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00368.x

14.

Hayes

Glynn

Shanahan

(2005a). Validating the willingness to self-censor scale: Individual differences in the effect of the climate of opinion on opinion expression. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 443-455. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh072

15.

Hayes

Glynn

Shanahan

(2005b). Willingness to self-censor: A construct and measurement for public opinion research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 298-323. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edh073

16.

Hayes

Matthes

Eveland

W. P.

(2013). Stimulating the quasi-statistical organ: Fear of social isolation motivates the quest for knowledge of the opinion climate. Communication Research, 40, 439-462. doi:10.1177/0093650211428608

17.

S. S.

McLeod

D. M.

(2008). Social-psychological influences on opinion expression in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Communication Research, 35, 190-207. doi:10.1177/0093650207313159

18.

Kim

S.-H.

(2012). Testing fear of isolation as a causal mechanism: Spiral of silence and genetically modified (GM) foods in South Korea. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24, 306-324. doi:10.1093/ijpor/eds017

19.

Krosnick

J. A.

Lavrakas

P. J.

Kim

(2014). Survey research. In Reis

H. T.

Judd

C. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (2nd ed., pp. 404-442). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

20.

Lee

(2012). The U.S. immigration debate. Retrieved from http://www.cfr.org/immigration/us-immigration-debate/p11149

21.

Lee

Detenber

B. H.

Willnat

Aday

Graf

(2004). A cross-cultural test of the spiral of silence theory in Singapore and the United States. Asian Journal of Communication, 14, 205-226. doi:10.1080/0129298042000256758

22.

Lin

C. A.

Salwen

M. B.

(1997). Predicting the spiral of silence on a controversial public issue. Howard Journal of Communications, 8, 129-141.

23.

Lipka

(2015). 5 facts about abortion. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/21/5-facts-about-abortion/

24.

Lloyd

K. M.

Yeilding

(2008). Marriage. In Darity

W. A.

(Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social sciences (pp. 612-616). Detroit, MI: Gale.

25.

Louis

W. R.

Duck

J. M.

Terry

D. J.

Lalonde

R. N.

(2010). Speaking out on immigration policy in Australia: Identity threat and the interplay of own opinion and public opinion. Journal of Social Issues, 66, 653-672. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01669.x

26.

Matthes

Hayes

A. F.

Rojas

Shen

Min

S.-J.

Dylko

I. B.

(2012). Exemplifying a dispositional approach to cross-cultural spiral of silence research: Fear of social isolation and the inclination to self-censor. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24, 287-305. doi:10.1093/ijpor/eds015

27.

Matthes

Morrison

K. R.

Schemer

(2010). A spiral of silence for some: Attitude certainty and the expression of political minority opinions. Communication Research, 37, 774-800. doi:10.1177/0093650210362685

28.

McDevitt

Kiousis

Wahl-Jorgensen

(2003). Spiral of moderation: Opinion expression in computer-mediated communication. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 15, 454-470. doi:10.1093/ijpor/15.4.454

29.

Metzger

M. J.

(2009). The study of media effects in the era of Internet communication. In Nabi

R. L.

Oliver

M. B.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of media processes and effects (pp. 561-576). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

30.

Morin

(2013). Study: Polls may underestimate anti-gay sentiment and size of gay, lesbian population. Retrieved from http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/10/09/study-polls-may-underestimate-anti-gay-sentiment-and-size-of-gay-lesbian-population/

31.

Moy

Domke

Stamm

(2001). The spiral of silence and public opinion on affirmative action. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 7-25. doi:10.1177/107769900107800102

32.

Neuwirth

(2000). Testing the spiral of silence model: The case of Mexico. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 12, 138-159. doi:10.1093/ijpor/12.2.138

33.

Noelle-Neumann

(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

34.

Noelle-Neumann

(1985). Spiral of silence: A response. In Sanders

K. R.

Kaid

L. L.

Nimmo

(Eds.), Political communication yearbook, 1984 (pp. 66-94). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.

35.

Noelle-Neumann

(1993). The spiral of silence: Public opinion—Our social skin (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

36.

Oshagan

(1996). Reference group influence on opinion expression. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 335-354. doi:10.1093/ijpor/8.4.335

37.

Pan

P.-L.

Meng

Zhou

(2010). Morality or equality? Ideological framing in news coverage of gay marriage legitimization. The Social Science Journal, 47, 630-645. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2010.02.002

38.

Petersen

(2012). The enduring appeal of an unwieldy theory. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24, 263-268. doi:10.1093/ijpor/eds031

39.

Pew Research Center. (2012). Search, social networks, and politics. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/datasets/february-2012-search-social-networks-and-politics/

40.

Powell

R. J.

(2013). Social desirability bias in polling on same-sex marriage ballot measures. American Politics Research, 41, 1052-1070. doi:10.1177/1532673X13484791

41.

Salmon

C. T.

Glynn

C. J.

(2009). Spiral of silence: Communication and public opinion as social control. In Stacks

D. W.

Salwen

M. B.

(Eds.), An integrated approach to communication theory and research (pp. 153-168). New York, NY: Routledge.

42.

Salmon

C. T.

Neuwirth

(1990). Perceptions of opinion “climates” and willingness to discuss the issue of abortion. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 67, 567-577. doi:10.1177/107769909006700312

43.

Salmon

C. T.

Oshagan

(1990). Community size, perceptions of majority opinion, and opinion expression. In Grunig

L. A.

Grunig

J. E.

(Eds.), Public relations research journal (Vol. 2, pp. 157-171). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

44.

Scheufele

D. A.

(2007). Spiral of silence theory. In Donsbach

Traugott

M. W.

(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of public opinion research (pp. 175-183). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

45.

Scheufele

D. A.

Shanahan

Lee

(2001). Real talk: Manipulating the dependent variable in spiral of silence research. Communication Research, 28, 304-324. doi:10.1177/009365001028003003

46.

Shoemaker

P. J.

Tankard

J. W.

Lasorsa

D. L.

(2004). How to build social science theories. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

47.

A timeline of same-sex marriage in the US. (2014, May 20). Boston Globe. Retrieved from http://www.bostonglobe.com/2013/06/26/same-sex-marriage-over-time/mbVFMQPyxZCpM2eSQMUsZK/story.html#

48.

Wanta

Dimitrova

(2000, June). Chatrooms and the spiral of silence: An examination of online discussions during the final 1996 U.S. presidential debate. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Acapulco, Mexico.

49.

Weaver

D. H.

(2003). Basic statistical tools. In Stempel

G. H.

Weaver

D. H.

Wilhoit

G. C.

(Eds.), Mass communication research and theory (pp. 147-181). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

50.

Willnat

Lee

Detenber

B. H.

(2002). Individual-level predictors of public outspokenness: A test of the spiral of silence theory in Singapore. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 14, 391-412.

51.

Yeric

J. L.

Todd

J. R.

(1989). Public opinion: The visible politics (2nd ed.). Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock. doi:10.1093/ijpor/14.4.391

52.

Yun

G. W.

Park

S.-Y.

(2011). Selective posting: Willingness to post a message online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16, 201-227. doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2010.01533.x