Spiral of silence

The phenomenon of the “spiral of silence” as such has long been known. Already in 1856, in the “History of the French Revolution” published by A. de Tocqueville , one can find an exact description of the dynamics of the influence of the “spiral of silence”: “people who held the old faith were afraid to be in the minority of devotees of their religion. And since isolation frightened them more than mistakes, they joined the majority without changing their thoughts. The views of only one part of the nation seemed to be the opinion of all, and that is why those who were to blame for this fraud were irresistibly misleading ” ^[3] . In addition, the mere indication of the existence of a “spiral of silence” can also be traced to ancient authors, and later in the works of J.-J. Rousseau and D. Hume , J. Locke , M. Luther , Machiavelli , Jan Hus and others. ^[2] However, this phenomenon did not get its name only in the 60s of the 20th century from Elizabeth, professor of the Institute for Demoscopy in Allensbach, Elizabeth Noel-Neumann, the author of the monograph entitled Public Opinion. Opening the spiral of silence. "

Since the main reason for the manifestation of the “spiral of silence” is the phenomenon of public opinion , the premises of the theory are explained through the concept of how public opinion is generated. There are two sources in society that generate public opinion. The first is direct observation of the environment, capturing whether certain actions, phenomena, statements, etc. are approved. The second source is the mass media. They give rise to the so-called "spirit of the time" - another concept that serves to designate the topics of public opinion, which has been preserved for a long time. This "spirit" affects the attitude and behavior of the individual. The formation of public opinion is due to attitudes, the purpose of which was especially emphasized in 1922 by the American journalist and sociologist Lippman . Lipman believed that each person is regulated, determined through attitudes that determine what he sees, hears how he interprets the environment, which is important for the individual. ^[4] Thus, the media should have journalistic diversity, that is, provide an opportunity to "tell the world" different points of view and opinions. After all, the media play a big role in determining which opinion is dominant, since the possibilities of our direct observation are limited by a small percentage of the population. Mass media have a huge impact on how public opinion is displayed, and can greatly influence the individual perception of public opinion, regardless of whether the description is true. ^[5] It depends on how a person perceives public opinion, and whether the “spiral of silence” effect will arise.

The spiral analogy in the description of a theory is used to visually denote it. At the end of the spiral are people who do not express their opinions publicly for fear of isolation. The more a person’s opinion does not coincide with the generally accepted, the lower this person is located in a spiral. ^[6] Fear of being isolated is the starting point for the rotation of the spiral, which, with each new turn, increases its diameter, affecting the opinions of the majority. Noelle-Neumann describes the spiral of silence as a dynamic process in which forecasts of public opinion become a fact, since coverage of the majority opinion in the media becomes the status quo , and a minority is less likely to speak out. ^[5] Noel-Neumann's study showed that each person forms his own idea of ​​public opinion, but self-limits himself in his statements, for fear of conflict with the dominant opinion in society, as this may cause disapproval of his environment and, as a result, isolation. Thus, the bearer of an opinion, which he himself considers unpopular in most cases, either remains silent without revealing it, or even joins the opposite side, focusing on the winners, representatives of the prevailing opinion, thereby minimizing their social risks. At this stage, the spiral makes its first round and continues to unwind in the sense that the “social skin” of other members of society will perceive public opinion on the basis of information provided by the first carrier to adopt a conformal position. This effect continues even further, twisting the spiral in some cases until the real majority adopts a position of silence. ^[7]

Fundamentals of the Theory

1. People are afraid of being rejected by people from their social environment, which is called the “fear of isolation."
2. People constantly observe the behavior of others, noting for themselves what is being approved and what is disapproval from society.
3. People unknowingly issue their own threats of isolation, showing signals of approval or disapproval.
4. Threats of isolation are avoided by a tendency to refrain from making statements about anything that, in the opinion of the person, may raise objections.
5. People are more likely to publicly affirm what they believe will be accepted positively.
6. The spiral effect begins when people speak confidently, the opposition feels even greater fear of isolation and is even more convinced of the need to remain silent, as they are in the minority. These feelings are becoming more and more intense exponentially on both sides.
7. To activate the spiral, the problem must have a tangible moral component.
8. If there is public consensus, the spiral will not be activated. Two opposing parties must be available.
9. The media have a great influence on this process.
10. Fear and the threat of isolation are subconscious processes.
11. The spiral of silence has power over the public for only a limited time.
12. If a topic activates the spiral of silence, this means that this issue poses a great threat to social consensus. ^[five]
13. On this basis, the realization of the Abilin paradox is possible.

“Shift of the last minute”, “effect of fellow travelers at the last minute” - a situation when the electorate at the last moment changes its opinion in favor of a party under the influence of public opinion;

“The effect of one team” is a situation in which an individual tries to impersonate a supporter of the winning party, even if he actually voted differently. It is also called the "effect of success." The results of the polls, widely reported in the media , have a direct impact on the nature and content of the election campaign, forcing candidates to make appropriate adjustments to their position. The essence of the “success effect” is that people tend to accept the opinions that are shared by more people. Observers trace the tendency of voters to switch to the side of the leading candidate. The applicant, seeking to gain an advantage over his rivals, suddenly begins to enjoy growing popularity among the population. The media is paying him much more attention than other candidates, and he is gaining more fame. As a result, "success gives rise to success."

In order to achieve social isolation (which affects the spiral of silence) or any other form of disapproval of an individual’s actions, it is necessary to precisely identify the actor who has endorsed the unapproved point of view, or completely deanonymize his personality. In this regard, it is necessary to consider three global levels of disclosure of personal information in communication mediated by the Internet ^[7] :

1. Complete anonymity . It assumes the absence of any information about the user, or its minimum, limited by an unfixed alias. This includes guest books, news comments, and some online chats. In general, this level of anonymity corresponded to the earliest forms of mass communication on the network. Taking the fear of social isolation as the main reason for the “spiral of silence”, we understand that in this case, for the individual in the absence of such fear, the spiral should not act, that is, the user will express his thoughts without regard to the dominant opinion in the group. This type of anonymity creates the conditions for an ideal pluralistic public sphere. However, in reality this segment is very insignificant. As a rule, Internet services require authorization and are aimed at creating communities.
2. Anonymity of "real" life . Other users have knowledge about the user only as a member of their virtual community, but not as a specific person, his physical location and status in “reality”. At this level, a certain status value appears in the virtual community. Thus, new social ties are formed, although not based on personal acquaintance, but of interest to the user as a member of the community. Partial anonymity implies that a certain social isolation is possible and pressure on the user, although limited, can be exerted. The restriction factor is the subjective importance of the community for the user, since it is impossible to apply the restriction in the “real world” to it, and the only reason for the user's fears can only be his image in the community, the negative or positive attitude of other users. The significance and stability of virtual communities in most cases is lower than in reality, since these groups do not interact in the external environment ^[8] . Thus, the costs of expressing an unpopular opinion are not as high as in the case of the real social environment, the change of which seems difficult. Thus, the individual has less reason to hide his opinion and the spiral unwinds with less force.
3. Lack of anonymity . Personal information provided by the user reveals his identity in reality. In this case, we can talk about reconstructing on the Internet many links inherent in “real” life in society. Such manifestations are especially characteristic for social networks and all Web 2.0 . A key feature of social networks and Web 2.0 is the transfer of real social connections to the Internet. Thus, the user acquires all the same restrictions that society imposes on him offline. Expressing an unpopular opinion on a social network, the user risks not only being ostracized within the Internet community, but also experiencing social pressure in “real life”, which poses a barrier that is very similar to the classic cases of using the “silence spiral”.

Some critics claim that from the position of the “spiral of silence” the fact of the Nazis coming to power cannot be explained. This is due to the fact that initially they were in the minority, and their views shocked the majority of the population. Other critics cited other facts: in the German society of the Weimar Republic, the spiritual climate was determined by the right, and not the left, who expressed their views quite loudly and had good starting positions.

N. Mansurov in the annotation to the book by Elizabeth Noel-Neumann argues that the concept of the “spiral of silence” is not universal and is not able to explain all cases of public life ^[9] . The fear of isolation should nevertheless be regarded as one of the moments in the system of causes that determine the formation of public opinion, because in some cases it acts as a consequence, and not as a cause.

Critics of the “spiral of silence” theory argue that people are subject to a huge number of factors that determine whether they will openly express their opinions or not.

Studies show that the fear of being isolated within narrower circles of communication is much greater than the fear of being isolated within the entire society. ^[10] Within a whole country, a person is likely to find a group of people sharing his interests, so people are afraid of isolation within their close circle much more.

In addition, scholars say that both personality factors of an individual and cultural differences between different social groups will affect the likelihood of a person expressing his opinion openly. So, if a person has a high self-esteem and does not feel shame, then he will be able to speak out regardless of how he perceives the climate of public opinion. ^[11] With regard to culture, in some cultures the open expression of one's ideas is not approved. ^[11] Thus, individualistic cultures encourage the expression of individual opinions, even a direct expression of disagreement and confrontation, while collectivist cultures place in the first place the opinions and needs of the majority, of the collective. The gender identity of a person can also be considered as a cultural factor. In some cultures, women are either denied or partially restricted in it. ^[11] Thus, not only the individual perception of public opinion by a person, but also cultural factors should be considered in proving the theory of the “spiral of silence”. ^[12]

• Group reinforcement
• Asha experiment
• Conformity
• Group dynamics
• The effect of social desirability
• Silent majority

• Noelle-Neumann, E. (1984). The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion - Our Social Skin. Chicago: University of Chicago . - ISBN 0-226-58936-6 (2nd edition, 1993)
• Noelle-Neumann, E. (1991). The Theory of Public Opinion: The Concept of the Spiral of Silence. In JA Anderson (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 14, 256–287. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
• Spiral of Silence - Elizabeth Noelle-Nuemann - chapter 29 of A First Look at Communication Theory, Em Griffin, pp. 372-382.

• Spiral of Silence // Blog Mass Communication Theory: from Theory to Practical Application. (eng.)
• Social Media and the 'Spiral of Silence' // Pew Research Center and Rutgers University, August 26, 2014.