International Journal of Public Opinion Research Vol. No. / $.

TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF THE SPIRALOF SILENCE: A CONCEPTUAL REVIEW

AND EMPIRICAL OUTLOOK

Dietram A. Scheufele and Patricia Moy

ABSTRACT

Numerous studies have been conducted on the spiral of silence since Noelle-Neumann() formulated the theory a quarter of a century ago. As a whole, these studies drawupon dierent conceptualizations, employ inconsistent operationalizations, and giveshort shrift to important macroscopic variables. Such inconsistencies potentially accountfor substantial proportions of the variance in spiral of silence eects. This paperexamines these three areas in greater detail. First, we review key assumptions andtheoretical statements of the spiral of silence. Second, we examine how these conceptualissues translate into operational ones. Finally, we outline areas that have remainedlargely unexplored over the last years. Specifically, we contend that spiral of silencestudies in dierent cultures have failed to take into account culture-specific variablesthat may mitigate the importance of opinion perceptions as predictors of individualbehavior or attitudes. In other words, cross-cultural dierences are key factors inpredicting speaking out, the key dependent variable in spiral of silence research. As aresult, we call for the return to a more macroscopic focus in spiral of silence research.

When Noelle-Neumann () formulated the spiral of silence theory, she inessence posited that an individuals willingness to express his or her opinionwas a function of how he or she perceived public opinion. After all, individualsideas, attitudes, and behaviors are often influenced by their perception of whatothers do or think (Cooley ). As OGorman and Garry (, p. )noted: These cognitive attributions . . . may be widespread, firmly held andprovide common understanding, but their accuracy is not to be assumed.Researchers have examined individual perceptions of public opinion and theirimpact on political behaviors and attitudes (for an overview, see Mutz ),

A previous version of this paper won the MAPOR Fellows Student Paper Competition at the annualmeeting of the Midwest Association for Public Opinion Research, Chicago, IL, November, .

World Association for Public Opinion Research

and some have concluded that the spiral of silence is the only theory of publicopinion possessing the attributes of depth, range, and to more limited extent,accuracy (Neuwirth , p. ). Since its inception a quarter of a centuryago, the spiral of silence has generated considerable empirical research withinconsistent findings, leading Glynn, Hayes, and Shanahan () to examinethe key relationship between perceptions of majority opinion and an individualswillingness to express his or her opinion. Their meta-analysis of over empirical studies revealed a small but significant eect.

Contradictory results and the inconsistently strong findings across spiral ofsilence studies have their origin in a number of sources: () conceptual problems,e.g. inconsistencies in how key concepts in the spiral of silence are explicated;() problems regarding the measurement of key variables in the process; and() varying levels of attention paid to testing important macroscopic variables.

This paper examines all three areas in greater detail, looking back over thehistory of spiral of silence research. First, we review key assumptions andtheoretical statements of the spiral of silence, grounding the theory in publicopinion and situating it in the more general framework of theories on opinionperceptions. Based on this framework, we address problematic assumptions andtheoretical statements in spiral of silence research. Second, we examine howthese conceptual issues translate into concrete operational ones. Finally, weoutline areas left largely unexplored by previous research on the spiral of silence.Specifically, we address a concern raised by McLeod and Blumler () whoargued for a more macroscopic focus in communication sciences that will enableresearchers to make cross-cultural comparisons. While we argue that inconsistentfindings across studies in dierent cultures (for an overview, see Glynn et al.) stem from the inapplicability of a given measure in dierent cultures orgeneral operational dierences among studies, cross-cultural research suggeststhat cultures dier in their socially shared meanings, norms of interpersonalrelationships, and conflict resolution. Hence, the question for spiral of silenceresearch becomes: to what degree can culture-specific variables oset or increasethe importance of opinion perceptions as predictors of individual behavior orattitudes? As a result, we call for a return to a more macroscopic focus in spiralof silence research.

DEFINING PUBLIC OPINION

Against a backdrop of philosophers and researchers grappling with the task ofdefining public opinion (see Davison for an overview), Noelle-Neumann() dierentiates two concepts of public opinion: () public opinion asrationality, which makes it instrumental . . . in the process of opinion formationand decision making in a democracy; and () public opinion as social control,

-

where its role is to promote social integration and to ensure that there is asucient level of consensus on which actions and decisions may be based(Noelle-Neumann , p. ).

P O R

Public opinion, according to a rational model, results from political raisonnementin the public sphere (Habermas ). In its purest form, public opinion asrationality is the social judgment reached upon a question of general or civicimport after conscious rational public discussion (King , p. xxiii). Similarly,the rational formation of public opinion occurs when many or most membersof the citizenry agree on judgments that individuals have arrived at, due toeither reflection or knowledge of an issue (Palmer ). The rational model isbased on the notion of an enlightened, rational public that is willing to andcapable of participating in political processes (Childs , Wilson ). Inthis sense, the rational concept of public opinion is a necessary condition forgenerating social change.

P O S C

It is, however, the model of public opinion as social control (Bentham /) that underlies the spiral of silence theory. Because successful socialsystems must have ways to institutionalize consensus (Csikszentmihalyi ,p. ), they threaten individuals with social isolation in order to ensure thesenecessary levels of cohesion (Noelle-Neuman ). At the same time, individualsconstantly scan their environment for present and future distributions of publicopinion in order to see which opinions and modes will win the approval ofsociety and which will lead to their isolation (Noelle-Neumann , p. ).Public opinion as social control is thus defined as opinions that can be expressedwithout risking sanctions or social isolation, or opinions that have to be expressedin order to avoid isolation (Noelle-Neumann ).

R C

Childs () wrote that it is rather unlikely that students of public opinionwill ever discover a method for separately identifying the rational as distinguishedfrom the irrational opinion, for the process of opinion formation and expressionis a complicated and mysterious process (p. ). However, recent work makesit possible to identify at least three distinct dierences between the two modelsof public opinion (Merton , Noelle-Neumann , , ).

First, the rational model of opinion formation and the model of social controldier substantially in their modes of opinion expression. The former views

public opinion in terms of political discussion and decision making, andemphasizes verbal expression of rational arguments or opinions, i.e. raisonnementin the public sphere. Public opinion as social control, on the other hand, worksthrough various forms of opinion expression like verbal and facial expressions,gestures, and publicly visible symbols. The display of yard signs, bumperstickers, or campaign buttons, often used as a measure of political participation(e.g. Verba et al. ), falls under the spiral of silence modelat least in thosecases where the intention is to influence perceptions of opinion distributionrather than to convey a political message.

Second, the two models dier with respect to the eort required for opinionexpression. In a rational model, participation in political discussion and decisionmaking is a function of two groups of individual-level factors: the ability toacquire information about and discuss political issues rationally and the motivationto discuss these issues with others. Both ability and motivation require consciouseort. As a result, although all citizens may potentially participate in thediscussion, there is in fact only a small group of informed and interested citizenswho actually do participate (Noelle-Neumann , p. ). The model ofpublic opinion as social control, however, views processes of opinion formationand expression as mostly unconscious. Individuals scan their environment forpresent and future distributions of opinion to a large degree unconsciously.Speaking out in this model is therefore less of a conscious decision to enter adiscussion than an unconscious reluctance to express ones opinion.

Finally, the two models of public opinion dier with respect to the con-ceptualizations of public. Public in a rational model of public opinion alwaysrefers to a particular group of politically interested and knowledgeable citizensin the sense of a public sphere (Habermas , Noelle-Neumann , Wilson). In contrast, the model of social control defines public as involvingeverybody; thus public opinion, or rather public pressure, aects all membersof society. The spiral of silence clearly falls under the model of public opinionas social control. It can also be viewed as a theory of social perception.

THE SPIRAL OF SILENCE AS A THEORY OF SOCIALPERCEPTION

Perceptions of public opinion matter not only because individuals attend totheir social environment, but also because these perceptions potentially influenceindividual behavior and attitudes.

W I A S E

If human beings are naive psychologists as Heider (, ) concluded, thenthey cannot understand the world in all its complexity. As a result, they constantly

-

observe their environment to make inferences from sensory information tothe underlying causal relationships. Indeed, subjects exposed to movies withabstract movements of geometrical shapes not only tended to interpret thesemovements as actions of human beings, but also made inferences to certainunderlying motivations (Heider and Simmel ).

How do people process and organize incoming information? Drawing uponGestalt psychology (e.g. Koka , Wertheimer ), Sherif () arguedthat individuals use frames of reference, the most important one being socialgroups. His argument, supported by experimental evidence, that individualsuse their social environment as a frame of reference for interpreting newinformation has important implications for public opinion research. Under theassumptions of the Gestalt psychology, individuals feel uneasy if faced withinformation without an appropriate frame of reference by which to interpret it.Public opinion or judgments of others therefore provides the most powerfulframe of reference. One subject in Sherifs () experiments summarizes thepower of public opinion as a frame of reference nicely: If you tell me oncehow much I am mistaken, all my judgments will be better (Sherif ,p. ).

W P M

The spiral of silence theory rests on the assumption that individuals constantlyscan their environment in order to assess the climate of opinion, i.e. theaggregate distribution of opinions on a given issue. This assumption aligns thespiral of silence with other theoretical approaches that consider public opiniona process and provide information on how that process operates (Glynn et al.).

Their accuracy notwithstanding, perceptionsor misperceptionsof opinionclimates matter from a normative standpoint as an increasing body of literaturepoints to the power of perceptions in shaping, among other things, onesperception of the self, emotions, judgments, and behavior (Miller and Prentice).

In the political realm alone, numerous studies have examined the eects ofopinion polls on voter turnout and the direction of the vote (e.g. Ansolabehereand Iyengar , Atkin , de Bock , Cook and Welch , Lavrakaset al. , Noelle-Neumann , Skalaban , West ). For instance,experimental data from Atkin () and Mutz () revealed that (fictitious)poll results influenced preferences of candidates and issues. Bartels ()study of momentum in presidential primaries showed that prospective votersperceptions of the candidates popularity influence their vote choice. Similarly,other researchers have studied the impact of exit polls and early election returns

on voter turnout and vote choice (e.g. Delli Carpini , Sudman ).Evidence from these studies, however, is inconsistent, even in the case ofbandwagon eects, i.e. eects based on peoples desire to be on the winningside (e.g. Gartner , McAllister and Studlar , Navazio , Stran, Zech ).

Eects of opinion perceptions on vote choice aside, a second group of variablesdeserves closer attention: opinion expression. Experimental findings by Lataneand Darley () very clearly demonstrated the importance and societalrelevance of speaking out. Subjects who worked alone on a questionnaire weremore likely than subjects who worked in groups to report the presence of smokethat had been induced into the room in which they worked. This finding isespecially striking, considering that the experimental situation suggested po-tential physical threat. Still, this concern for physical well-being was obviouslyoset by what Miller and Prentice () call social fear or the fear ofappearing naive or foolish (p. ) if their concerns proved to be unjustified.Nisbett and Kunda () suggest that even in cases of discrepancies betweenones own opinions and public opinion, the mere knowledge of this discrepancycould lead an individual to steer away from controversial topics so as to avoidoending others who hold dierent opinions (p. ). This notion is the sameone underlying Noelle-Neumanns model of the spiral of silence.

THE SPIRAL OF SILENCE: ISSUES OFCONCEPTUALIZATION

With an emphasis on the formation, functions and eects of public opinion,the spiral of silence presents an approach that integrates what some consider afractured concept of public opinion and oers the possibility to test it empirically(Salmon and Kline , p. ). This section outlines the assumptions and keytheoretical statements of the spiral of silence, and evaluates conceptual issuesthat have arisen since the theory was introduced.

A

The assumptions of the spiral of silence can be outlined in the form of fivemajor hypotheses1 (Noelle-Neumann ).

Threat of Isolation: In the social collective cohesion must be constantly ensuredby a sucient level of agreement on values and goals (Noelle-Neumann ,

1 This description follows the most recent publications of Noelle-Neumann (, , ), whichdier significantly from the original publication (Noelle-Neumann ) in the systematic description of thepremises and necessary conditions underlying the process of the spiral of silence.

-

p. ). To guarantee this agreement, society threatens with isolation thoseindividuals who violate the consensus.

Fear of Isolation: The formation of individual opinion and action is char-acterized by individuals fear of becoming social isolates (Sanders et al., p. xvi). This second assumption of the spiral of silence derivesfrom experimental studies on conformity.2 Social conformity can be eitherinformational social influence, reflected in individuals accepting informationfrom others as evidence about reality, or normative societal influence, inwhich individuals conform with the . . . expectations of others (Deutschand Gerard , p. ). Noelle-Neumann () uses the latter to explainand provide evidence for the assumed impact of fear of isolation on willingnessto speak out. She refers to experiments in which subjects conformed withthe majority in performing relatively straightforward tasks such as selectinga line that matched another in length (Asch , ) and selecting thelonger of two acoustic tones (Milgram ). Noelle-Neumann () usesthe fact that subjects in Aschs experiment saw with their own eyes that theline selected by the majority as the best match is not the best match asevidence that fear of isolation is the dominant factor influencing conformity(Noelle-Neumann , p. ).

Quasi-statistical Sense: As a result of fear of isolation, individuals constantlymonitor their environment to check on the distribution of opinions as wellas the future trend of opinion. Such monitoring can involve attending tomedia coverage of an issue, direct observation of ones environment, orinterpersonal discussion of issues.3

The quasi-statistical sense is probably the most widely misinterpretedconcept in the spiral of silence. Critics have challenged the notion that aquasi-statistical perception of the climate of opinion is usually accurate. Forexample, some have suggested that Noelle-Neumanns model predicts thecomplete accuracy of a respondents perception of majority opinion (Neuwirth, p. ; see also Salmon and Kline , Neuwirth and Ilundain )and therefore cannot account for phenomena such as pluralistic ignorance or

2 As much of the literature on conformity uses the terms conformity and compliance interchangeably,we follow Hardys (, p. ) definition of conformity that is equivalent to the definition underlyingNoelle-Neumanns assumptions: Conformity is defined as the public avowal of a belief or attitude at variancewith ones prior position, which avowal tends to correspond to the position approved by the group in whichthe avowal occurs.

3 Whereas Noelle-Neumann used the term quasi-statistical organ in her early writings (), her laterpieces address broadly a quasi-statistical ability to perceive the climate of opinion (, p. ). These twosources of perceptions have to be understood in this broader sense as perceptions of reality through masscommunication, on the one hand, and interpersonal communication and observation, on the other hand(, p. ).

the looking-glass perception.4 As Salwen, Lin, and Matera () point out,however, the hypothesis focuses on peoples perceptions of the climate ofopinion, rather than a real climate of opinion (Salwen, Lin, and Matera, p. , emphasis in original). Misperceptions of public opinion likepluralistic ignorance or the looking-glass perception are an integral part ofthe spiral of silence theory with respect to phenomena like the dual climateof opinion (Noelle-Neumann ), i.e. the misrepresentation of publicopinion in mass media. However, Glynn et al.s () meta-analysis identifieda relatively large number of researchers [who] fail to operationalize perceivedcongruency as such, instead focusing on objective congruency (Glynn etal. , p. , emphasis in original).

Willingness to Speak Out and Tendency to Remain Silent: Individuals tend topublicly express their opinions and attitudes when they perceive their viewto be dominant or on the rise. In contrast, when people sense their view isin the minority or on the decline, they become cautious and silent.

Spiral of Silence: The interaction of these four factors leads to a process offormation, change and reinforcement of public opinion. The tendency ofthe one to speak up and the other to be silent starts o a spiralingprocess which increasingly establishes one opinion as the prevailing one(Noelle-Neumann , p. ). This process is illustrated in Figure .Over time, changing perceptions of the opinion climate influence peopleswillingness to express minority opinions and establish one opinion as thepredominant one. Public opinion is transformed from a morally-loadedquestion or from the liquid state (Tonnies ) to a solid norm or dogma(Noelle-Neumann ).5

Three additional factors need to be taken into account to fully explain theprocess of the spiral of silence.

Moral Component of Public Opinion: The process of the spiral of silence onlyworks for issues with a moral component, or value-laden issues by whichthe individual isolates or may isolate himself in public (Noelle-Neumann, p. ). It is only from that moral or normative element that publicopinion asserts its threat of isolation (Noelle-Neumann , p. ).

4 Studies making this criticism generally do not refer to Noelle-Neumanns original theorizing but toDonsbach and Stevensons () claim that people are capable of perceiving the distribution of opinionsin their environment quite accurately (p. ).

5 This does not mean that unanimity of opinion is the logical conclusion (Glynn et al. , p. ) ofthe spiral of silence model. Hardcores, individuals who resist public pressure or lack the ability to perceiveor attend to public pressure, and avant-gardes, individuals who introduce and voice new minority ideas,explicitly contradict this notion (Noelle-Neumann ).

-

F The process of the spiral of silence

Time Factor:6 The perceived climate of opinion and its future developmentare critical factors in the spiral of silence. Which point of view is dominantor likely to become dominant, and which is held by a minority and likely tolose? This perception, accurate or not, influences individuals willingness tospeak out, which in turn influences their perception of the climate of opinion.The result is a spiral process which establishes one opinion over time as thepredominant public opinion (Noelle-Neumann , ).7

Role of the Media: The processes described above can only take place if themedia take an identifiable position in the conflict (Donsbach ). Anyscientific approach to the spiral of silence disregarding the media as a criticalfactor refute[s] the spiral of silence theory whenever the tone of the mediadiverges greatly from public opinion (Noelle-Neumann , p. ).

To summarize, if public opinion is a form of social control and involves theperceptions of others, then it can be defined as attitudes or behaviors one mustexpress in public if one is not to isolate oneself; in areas of controversy or

6 Allport () points to the importance of the process character of public opinion, i.e., to view thephenomenon as a process with a time dimension (p. ).

7 Neuwirths () assumption that once a spiral is set in motion, all persons favoring the minorityviewpoint eventually should fall silent (p. ) is not justified by Noelle-Neumanns theoretical assumptions.The spiral of silence establishes one opinion as the prevailing one, not as the only one. According toNoelle-Neumann (), there is always one minority that remains at the end of the spiral of silence processin defiance of the threats of isolation (p. ).

change, public opinions are those attitudes one can express without runningthe danger of isolating oneself (Noelle-Neumann , p. ). Human behavior,particularly the willingness to speak out, is heavily directed by a fear of isolationthat makes . . . sanctions of denial of sympathy, and so forth, very powerfulforms of influence (Glynn and McLeod , p. ).

Willingness to Speak Out

Criticism of the spiral of silence as a macro theory has mainly focused on threeareas (for an overview, see Donsbach and Stevenson ). First, researchershave questioned whether fear of isolation adequately and suciently explainsones willingness to speak out in experimental and survey designs (Glynn andMcLeod ). Others have suggested factors other than fear of isolation thatpotentially influence peoples willingness to speak out (Lasorsa , Salmonand Neuwirth ). Second, studies examining the spiral of silence empiricallyhave criticized Aschs (, ) and Milgrams () conformity experimentsas providing an adequate basis for the spiral of silence theory (e.g. Glynn andMcLeod , Price and Allen , Salmon and Kline ). Third, andsomewhat related, researchers have suggested that cues about opinion dis-tribution may come from sources other than the national climate of opinion(e.g. Glynn and Park ).

These criticisms need to be reevaluated as recent studies have responded inpart to these critiques and investigated fear of isolation in greater detail (e.g.Hallemann , Noelle-Neumann ). In addition, some arguments identifyless of a substantive problem, suggesting that the theoretical framework of thespiral of silence has been misinterpreted. The identification of deficits in thespiral of silence and its theoretical premises requires examining criticisms ofthe experimental evidence and fear of isolation.

Criticism of Experimental Evidence

Criticisms of Aschs conformity experiments as appropriate experimental evidencefor testing the hypotheses formulated in the spiral of silence (Glynn and McLeod, Salmon and Kline ) concentrate on six aspects, all of which involveexternal validity and refer to Hovlands () notion of a captive audience.

First, subjects in the experiment were exposed to unambiguous stimuli, askedto dierentiate between objectively observable right and wrong answers(Pollis and Cammalleri , p. ).8 This point is especially important given

8 Crutchfield () provides experimental data which includes, among other judgments, estimates of theopinions of others, [and] expression of his own attitudes on issues (p. ). The external validity of hisfindings, however, is limited in that all subjects were engaged in a profession in which leadership is one ofthe expected qualifications. Moreover, subjects did not have direct face-to-face contact with each other.Argyle () points to the influence that public, i.e. face-to-face experimental situations have on the resultsof tests of conformity.

-

Noelle-Neumanns (, ) distinction between public opinion as rationalityand public opinion as social control. With respect to conformity and the modelof social control, public opinion does not depend on what is right or wrong(Noelle-Neumann , p. ) but on what is good or bad. Accordingly, it isthis moral component that makes public opinion so powerful in inducingconformity.

Second, important independent variables like interpersonal communicationbetween the experimental subjects during the experiment were not adequatelycontrolled for (Glynn and McLeod ; see also Price and Allen , Salmonand Kline ).

Third, Aschs experimental settings with one stimulus at a single point oftime cannot explain the process character of public opinion, from which thespiral of silence takes its name.

Fourth, researchers have suggested that positive motives like being on thewinners side can explain conformist behavior (Glynn and McLeod ,Salmon and Kline ). Others have argued that the conformity rate inAsch-type experiments is a result of two opposing forcesa pressure to conform,and the pressure to remain independent (Ross et al. ).

Fifth, good theories should be able to cross national boundaries (Salmon andKline ). Milgrams () tests of conformity showed higher levels ofconformity among Norwegians than the French. Expanding on this research,Meeus and Raijmakers () experiment found relatively consistent resultsfor the USA, Europe, Australia, and the Far East. There is no evidence,however, that these experiments can be considered an operationalization of theconcept of conformity.

Finally, the extent of conformity in Aschs experiment clearly depended onthe unanimity of majority pressure. When subjects were supported by a singleconfederate, conformity rates dropped to one-fourth the level of that underconditions of unanimity (Asch ). These data suggested that there aresucient grounds for concluding that unanimitythat is, the sequence ofresponses reflecting interindividual consistencyis more important than themere number of persons adopting a common response (Moscovici ,p. ).

Criticism of Fear of Isolation as the Only Motivation

The second area of criticism focuses on the fear of isolation as the single factorin explaining an individuals willingness to speak out. Researchers have examinedvarious contingent conditions other than fear of isolation under which individualsare in fact willing to express their opinions in public (Lasorsa , Neuwirth, Noelle-Neumann , Salmon and Neuwirth ). The problem is

that while Noelle-Neumann () does not provide a systematic control forantecedents of the willingness to speak out other than fear of isolation, othershave controlled for other factors but not for fear of isolation (Lasorsa ,Salmon and Neuwirth , Weimann , ).

Reference Groups vs. Anonymous Publics

Finally, critics have questioned whether reference groups aect ones willingnessto express an opinion (Glynn and Park , , Oshagan ). Thiscriticism, to some degree, is related to the criticism of Aschs experiments onconformity. As described earlier, a single person agreeing with the subjectsjudgment was enough for the subject to withstand majority pressure. However,this criticism addresses only one of two problems regarding reference groups.First, do reference groups influence an individuals fear of isolation or is fearof isolation, as Noelle-Neumann () argues, a personality trait? Second, andperhaps more importantly, can reference groups serve as proxies for the climateof opinion? In other words, do people make inferences from their referencegroups to the general climate of opinion? Are the opinion distributions withinreference groups a better predictor of the willingness to speak out than thenational climate of opinion?

THE SPIRAL OF SILENCE: A RESEARCH AGENDA

Based on the premises outlined and the criticisms raised over the last quarterof a century, we outline a research agenda for future spiral of silence researchin the following sections. This agenda includes, in the first section, an outlineof key variables, including the criterion opinion expression, and relatedmeasurement issues. In the second section, the importance of reference groupsis examined in the process of the spiral of silence. The focus here is ondierences within a given society with respect to the social groups or entitiesthat are used as reference for climate assessment. Finally, the spiral of silenceis examined in the context of cross-cultural research.

S O K V : T C IO

Various operationalizations of public opinion expression on controversial issueshave been suggested (Glynn and McLeod , Noelle-Neumann , Salmonand Rucinski , Taylor ). Generally, public expression has been op-erationalized by some measure of the respondents willingness to express his orher opinion in a hypothetical situation.

A valid measure, however, needs to take into account at least six factors.

-

Cross-national dierences: major problems have emerged in comparativestudies due to the inapplicability of empirical tests of willingness to speak outin dierent cultural settings (Donsbach and Stevenson , Noelle-Neumann, Tokinoya , ). Therefore operationalizations have to be de-veloped which can be applied across cultures.

Public exposure: Taylor () uses a measure of willingness to donate moneyfor a group that supports ones own position as an indicator of publicoutspokenness. Financial contributions, however, lack the public element thatproduces conformity (Tyson and Kaplowitz ). In other words, publicopinion needs to be operationalized as the tribunal at which judgment ispassed (Noelle-Neumann , p. ).

Anonymous public: even if a public element is included in the measures ofpublic opinion expression, tests might neglect the anonymous character ofthe public. Glynn and McLeod (), for example, operationalized publicas a social gathering of people you know (p. ). Salmon and Rucinski(, p. ) used a hypothetical conversation with a group of friends tooperationalize public. Essentially private situations, however, i.e. out-spokenness in the family or with friends, are not suited for empirical testsof the concept for it is the willingness to speak out in public (coram publico)which is important to the process of public opinion (Noelle-Neumann ,p. ).

Size of the public: when operationalizing outspokenness, experimental designsor hypothetical questions in surveys should be chosen in which the size of thepublic is kept constant and as small as possible. According to Noelle-Neumann(), the larger the public, the more personal characteristicssecurity,self-confidence, practice in speaking, education, rolewill influence re-sponses, independently of the climate of opinion (p. ).9

Survey data: criticisms of the weak external validity of most conformityexperiments make survey data the appropriate method for data collection forevaluating the willingness to speak out.

Moral loading: the issue under study has to be a controversial one with aclearly identifiable moral aspect attached to it.

9 A hypothetical question used in a telephone survey by Donsbach and Stevenson () with an extremelylarge public will therefore not be appropriate for measuring outspokenness. They asked: Suppose a TVreporter with a camera and a microphone were asking people on the street whether there should be aconstitutional amendment to ban abortion. Would you be willing to say what you think or would you prefernot to? (p. ).

W -C D O P :R G . A P

Embedded in mass society theory, in which mass media are seen as powerfuland aecting a universe of atomized individuals, the spiral of silence has beencriticized for theorizing that individuals fear isolation from society at large. Theemphasis, these critics argue, should be on reference groups (Kennamer ,Salmon and Kline ).

Research in social psychology has documented the eects of reference groups.For instance, Newcombs () study of Bennington College students revealedan increasing conformity to group norms over time. Data from a similar, butshorter, field experiment conducted by Siegel and Siegel () oer additionalsupport for how attitude change over time is related to the group identificationof the subject (in this case, female college students as well). So while the powerof reference groups has been acknowledged in other fields relatively long ago,it has until recently been noticeably absent from spiral of silence research.

Katz () wrote that the spiral of silence theory itself cannot so easilydismiss the direct influence of actual membership and reference groups(p. ). While that statement may have stemmed from his work during the eraof limited eects (Katz and Lazarsfeld , Klapper ), others concernedwith linking levels of analysis within the field of public opinion also call forgreater attention to the role of reference groups (Price ). Indeed, referencegroups (Shibutani /) may play a more important role in the processof the spiral of silence than Noelle-Neumann had originally assumed (Glynnand McLeod , Price and Allen , Salmon and Kline , Salmon andNeuwirth , Salmon and Rucinski , Taylor ). Critics have chargedthat Noelle-Neumann has ignored the role of these small reference groups and,instead, has maintained that individuals perceive and are subject to the dominantpublic opinion, although it is unclear what this public represents or iscomposed of (Salmon and Kline , p. ). Rather, individual perception ofopinion climates is heavily influenced by the opinion distributions in importantreference groups. Edelstein () calls for an empirical answer to the questionwhat kinds of reference groups and what kinds of anonymous publics contributemost to the spheres of communication in which fear of isolation is played out(Edelstein , p. ).

Empirical research does not provide any conclusive evidence for the importanceof reference groups for individual perceptions of opinion climates. Salmon andRucinski () examined the congruency of respondents opinions with theperceived opinions of their friends, the population at the state level, and theopinions portrayed in mass media as antecedents of their willingness to speak out.Congruency between each of these climates of opinion and ones own opinion was

-

not related to willingness to speak out. For congruency with friends, the coecientwas in the wrong direction and significant. These findings, however, are verylikely a result of the operationalization of the dependent variable. Rather thanconstructing a hypothetical situation with an anonymous group of people, theymeasured respondents willingness to express their opinions to friends.

Salmon and Neuwirth () examined the impact of perceived communitycongruity and perceived national congruity on respondents willingness toengage in a conversation with a stranger about abortion. Results showed thatperceived community congruency did not have an impact on willingness tospeak out. Consistent with Noelle-Neumanns reasoning, perceived nationalcongruency predicted positively to respondents willingness to engage in sucha conversation. Oshagan () reported somewhat dierent results from asimilar study, finding that when reference and societal majority opinions aremade equally salient, the former becomes a more important influence.

Examining issues relevant to four separate communities, Glynn and Park(, ) found that self-specified reference groups did not influencerespondents willingness to express their opinions on a given issue, whereas theperceptions of the opinion distribution in the community as a whole did havean eect, suggesting that the dominant opinion among the generalized otherreference group makes a dierence, while perceptions of opinion dominancewithin a specific reference group does not (Glynn and Park , p. ). Thesefindings need to be interpreted in light of two limitations. First, their measureof willingness to speak out involved subjects circling the statement theysupported most from a list of statements. This measure does not meet thecriteria for operationalizing willingness to speak out as outlined earlier. Second,as a result of the community-specific issue, the study could not make anyinferences to a national climate of opinion.

B-C D O E : I D O?

A question that has remained virtually unanswered concerns whether the spiralof silence is a universal, cross-cultural phenomenon. Salmon and Kline ()suggest that as a macro theory, the spiral of silence should be applicable acrossnational boundaries. Indeed, the theory has been tested in a number of countriesincluding Germany (see Noelle-Neumann ), Japan (Ikeda , Tokinoya, ), Korea (Yang ), and the USA (see Scheufele ).In theirmeta-analysis of over published and unpublished studies from six countries,Glynn et al. () found small but significant eects of perceived congruencybetween own and perceived public opinion on peoples willingness to expresstheir opinion on controversial issues. Their meta-analysis, however, is plagued

by the same problems of commensurability confronting cross-national com-parisons of spiral of silence research. Genuine comparability, of course, can beachieved only by the application of some carbon-copy like process (Halloran, p. ). Comparisons require that one key variable be reasonably similarwith respect to how it is conceptualized and operationalized: the hypotheticalsituation commonly used to measure respondents willingness to speak out.

As noted earlier, willingness to speak out has been measured in a number ofways, posing threats even to the comparability of studies within a single countryor culture. Even more confusing is a finding reported by Donsbach andStevenson () who found that the same indicators for peoples willingnessto speak out might not be equally appropriate across dierent cultures. Theyconclude that the problem continues to exist of adapting the public situationand the readiness to speak up to the cultural and social conditions in a society(Donsbach and Stevenson , p. ).

Research suggests that beyond the more methodological problem of findingappropriate indicators for concepts in a given culture, there is a substantialdierence in personality traits for people living in dierent cultures (Cushmanand Sanderson King , Gudykunst et al. , Hui and Triandis , Hsu, Ito , Ting-Toomey , Triandis et al. , Trubinsky et al. ).The concept culture, and dierences between cultures, are hard to grasp andeven more dicult to operationalize (e.g. Triandis et al. ). Cushmanand Sanderson King () define culture in terms very similar to symbolicinteractionism, in which an important aspect of culture is a symbolicallyintegrated framework that regulates social interaction (p. ).

Cultures dier in the extent to which cooperation, competition, or in-dividualism . . . are emphasized (Triandis et al. , p. ). The concept ofindividualism seems to be a key variable in dierentiating social behavior,particularly communicatory behavior, across cultures (e.g. Gudykunst et al., Ito , Ting-Toomey ). Ting-Toomey () distinguishes betweenindividualistic, low-context cultures, and collectivistic, high-context cultures(p. ). Countries like Australia, Germany, or the USA can be consideredindividualistic cultures, while Asian countries exemplify collectivistic cultures.In individualistic cultures, the consistency between private self-image and publicself-image is of utmost importance (Ting-Toomey ). In other words, onehas to be true to himself or herself. As a result, members of individualisticcultures tend to stress the value of straight talk and tend to verbalize overtlytheir individual wants and needs (Trubinsky et al. , p. ). What otherpeople think of them is of only marginal importance to individuals in in-dividualistic cultures (Ito ). It seems, however, that the idea of individualismis limited to certain cultures. Moscovici () writes: To the best of myknowledge, it was the West, and the West alone, that produced and refined

-

the concept of humanity as autonomous, rational, self-directed individuals(Moscovici , p. ).

In contrast, the self collectivistic culture is situationally based and dependsheavily on the social environment at the time the social interaction takes place.Wei-ming () suggests that this is partly a function of a widespread Confucianschool of thought in Asian countries that has undermined the autonomy ofthe individual self (Wei-ming , p. ). Consequently, individuals incollectivistic cultures display discretion in voicing . . . opinions and feelings(Trubinsky et al. , p. ). Hui and Triandis () summarize what canbe called the collectivist personality:

Collectivists are more likely to pay more attention to the influencing agent than areindividualists. As a result, collectivists are more conforming than individualists . . .It may be safe to say that the former are more willing to go along with the group,to avoid being rejected (Hui and Triandis , p. ).

This distinction between individualism and collectivism is highly relevantfor future spiral of silence research. If it is indeed possible to identify personalitycharacteristics common to citizens of a given culture, these characteristics mightprove to be important long-term predictors of peoples willingness to speak outbeyond more temporally-bound perceptions of opinion climates.

In order to answer this question, the distinction between individualism andcollectivism at the socio-cultural level must be translated into equivalents atthe psychological level: allocentrism and idiocentrism, respectively (Triandis etal. ). However, this dichotomy might need to be refined for cross-culturalcomparisons. In examining conflict styles in the USA, Yugoslavia, and Japan,Cushman and Sanderson King () concluded that dierent cultures developtheir own myths, rituals, and social dramas for conflict resolution (Cushmanand Sanderson King , p. ). They identified distinctively dierentpatterns of conflict resolution for the three cultures: the Japanese manifested apattern of collaboration, based on their strong respect for hierarchy [and]homogenous values (Cushman and Sanderson King , p. ); the USAshowed a pattern of competition, based on a strong sense of individual freedomand achievement; and Yugoslavia as a culture was characterized by a climate ofcompromise, which may stem from the ethnic diversity created somewhatartificially this century.

Cushman and Sanderson Kings () scheme, however, lacks the abstractionthat makes it useful as a general classification scheme for types of cultures basedon the collectivismindividualism continuum. Moreover, at the psychologicallevel, it does not allow us to determine the levels of allocentrism or idiocentrismthat might be important factors in predicting peoples willingness to speak out.

More directly applicable approaches may be adapted from Rahims ()

work on interpersonal conflict styles and Putnam and Wilsons () research oncommunicative strategies in organizational conflicts. By classifying respondentsalong their concern for themselves and for others, Rahim generated five dierentconflict styles: integrating (high concern for self and others), dominating (highconcern for self and low concern for others), obliging (low concern for self andhigh concern for others), avoiding (low concern for self and others), andcompromising as a middle category. Based on a similar reasoning, Putnam andWilson () suggested a trichotomous scale that orders respondents and theirconflict resolution strategies hierarchically. Their scale can be used as a measureof allocentrism vs. idiocentrism and, at the same time, explain the phenomenonof avant-gardes or hard cores, or those respondents whose willingness to speakout seems mostly unaected by their perceptions of the climate of opinion.Putnam and Wilson () suggested the following three dimensions of conflictstyles:

Nonconfrontation: indirect strategies for handling a conflict; choices are toavoid or withdraw from a disagreement; communication behaviors includesilence, glossing over dierences, and concealing ill feelings.

Solution-orientation: direct communication about the conflict; behaviors thataim to find a solution, to integrate the needs of both parties, and to give inor compromise on issues.

Control: direct communication about the disagreement; arguing persistentlyfor ones position, taking control of the interaction, and advocating onesposition.

These scales may be used to identify persons who presumably react more or lessstrongly to social pressure, and can be employed in internationally comparativeresearch to identify societies that have a particularly pronounced desire forconsensus. Accordingly, the mechanisms of speaking out and falling silentdescribed within the framework of the spiral of silence ought to be clearlyevident in these societies.

CONCLUSION: ARGUING FOR A RETURN TO AMACRO-FOCUS IN SPIRAL OF SILENCE RESEARCH

Looking back over years of spiral of silence research, this paper has attemptedto summarize and clarify some of the conceptual issues that spiral of silenceresearch has suered from in recent decades. More specifically, we developeda set of general assumptions underlying the spiral of silence theory and theoreticalstatements describing its most important processes. Based on this conceptualwork, we outlined a research agenda, identifying deficits or inconsistencies inprevious research and necessary areas of future research. In a third step, rather

-

than focusing on existing theorizing, we argued for the inclusion of moremacroscopic variables in spiral of silence research.

A stronger focus of macroscopic variables and a stronger emphasis oncross-cultural research has the potential to promote theory-building in this area.Putnam and Wilsons () scale of conflict dimensions, for example, was notdesigned to tap cross-cultural dierences. If applied to spiral of silence researchin a cross-cultural setting, however, it might be useful in three areas.

First, measures of conflict styles can serve as measures of a phenomenon thatNoelle-Neumann calls hardcore or avant-gardes, tapping the degree to whichindividuals are susceptible to perceptions of opinion climates. In other words,are some people more concerned about themselves than about others, or viceversa, and are there personality characteristics that make some more likely toexpress their opinions, independent of their perceptions of their environment?Previous research has treated the concepts of hardcores or avant-gardes asassumptions rather than variables. We strongly argue for including measures ofthese concepts in future empirical research on the spiral of silence.

Second, and closely related, this measure might serve as a measure of fearof isolation. As we mentioned earlier, Glynn and McLeod () suggestedthat fear of isolation should be treated as a variable rather than an assumption.So far, research has widely ignored this suggestion (exceptions are Neuwirths() study in Mexico, Yangs () research in Korea, and Moy, Domke,and Stamms () work in the USA).

Third, and finally, a measurement of conflict styles could serve as a controlfor cross-cultural comparisons. If cultures truly dier with respect to howindividuals handle conflict and deal with public pressure, this variable is crucialin revealing these cultural dierences and providing further insights into theprocess of the spiral of silence.

In sum, we argue for a return to a more macroscopic focus in spiral of silenceresearch. A number of researchers (e.g. Lasorsa , Mutz , Price andAllen ) have approached the theory from a more micro perspective. Whilevery fruitful with respect to testing single theoretical statements within thetheory, these approaches have done little to account for overall dierences ineects or to examine the more societal-level processes that the spiral of silencetheory predicts. A more macroscopic focus is what makes the spiral of silencetheory most appealing for the field of public opinion research, which traditionallyhas limited its explanations to micro- and meso-theoretical approaches. Notonly can macro-theoretical approaches, like the spiral of silence, explain micro-inconsistencies on an empirical level but more importantly, a macroscopic focusis very likely the key to reconceptualizing and defining concepts like hardcoresand avant-gardes that have been somewhat neglected in previous research onthe spiral of silence.

REFERENCES

Allport, F. H. (): Toward a science of public opinion, Public Opinion Quarterly,, .

Ansolabehere, S. and Iyengar, S. (): Of horseshoes and horse races: Experimentalstudies of the impact of poll results on electoral behavior, Political Communication,, .

Argyle, M. (): Social pressure in public and private situations, Journal of Abnormaland Social Psychology, , .

Asch, S. E. (): Opinions and social pressure, Scientific American, , .Asch, S. E. (): Eects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of

judgements. In Campbell, J. H. and Hepler, H. W. (eds.) Dimensions in Communication:Readings, Belmont, CA, Wadsworth, pp. .

Atkin, C. K. (): The impact of political poll reports on candidate and issuepreference, Journalism Quarterly, , .

Bartels, L. (): Presidential Primaries and the Dynamics of Public Choice, Princeton,NJ, Princeton University Press.

Bentham, J. (/): The constitutional code. In Bowring, J. (ed.) TheWorks of Jeremy Bentham. Vol. , Book New York, Russel & Russel, pp. .

Childs, H. (): Public Opinion: Nature, Formation, and Role, Princeton, NJ, D. v.Nostrand.

Cook, S. W. and Welch, A. C. (): Methods of measuring the practical eect ofpolls on public opinion, Journal of Applied Psychology, , .

Cooley, C. (): Human Nature and the Social Order, New York, Scribner.Crutchfield, R. S. (): Conformity and character, The American Psychologist, ,

.Csikszentmihalyi, M. (): Reflections on the spiral of silence . In Anderson, J.

A. (ed.) Communication Yearbook, , Newbury Park, CA, Sage, pp. .Cushman, D. P. and Sanderson King, S. (): National and organizational cultures

in conflict resolution: Japan, the United States, and Yugoslavia. In Gudykunst,W. B.,Stewart, L. P., and Ting-Toomey, S. (eds.) Communication, Culture, and OrganizationalProcesses, Newbury Park, CA, Sage, pp. .

Davison, W. P. (): Public opinion: Introduction. In Sills, D. L. (ed.) InternationalEncyclopedia of the Social Sciences,New York, Macmillan, pp. .

de Bock, H. (): Influence of in-state election poll reports on candidate preferencein , Journalism Quarterly, , .

Delli Carpini, M. X. (): Scooping the voters? The consequences of the networksearly call of the presidential race, Journal of Politics, , .

Deutsch, M. and Gerard, H. B. (): A study of the normative and informationalsocial influences upon individual judgment, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,, .

Donsbach, W. (): Die Theorie der Schweigespirale [The theory of the spiral ofsilence]. In Schenk, M. (ed.) Medienwirkungsforschung, Tubingen, Mohr, pp. .

Donsbach, W. and Stevenson, R. L. (): Challenges, Problems, and Empirical

-

Evidence of the Theory of the Spiral Of Silence. Paper presented to the annualconvention of the International Communication Association, San Francisco, May.

Donsbach, W. and Stevenson, R. L. (): Herausforderungen, Probleme und em-pirische Evidenzen der Theorie der Schweigespirale [Challenges, problems, andempirical evidence of the theory of the spiral of silence], Publizistik, , .

Edelstein, A. S. (): Communication perspectives in public opinion: Traditions andinnovations. In Anderson, J. A. (ed.), Communication Yearbook , Beverly Hills,CA, Sage, pp. .

Gartner, M. (): Endogenous bandwagon and underdog eects in a rational choicemodel, Public Choice, , .

Glynn, C. J. and McLeod, J. M. (): Public opinion du jour: An examination ofthe spiral of silence, Public Opinion Quarterly, , .

Glynn, C. J. and McLeod, J. M. (): Implications of the spiral of silence theoryfor communication and public opinion research. In Sanders, K. R., Kaid, L. L.,and Nimmo, D. (eds.) Political Communication Yearbook , Carbondale andEdwardsville, Southern Illinois University Press, pp. .

Glynn, C. J. and Park, E. (): Reference Groups, Opinion Thresholds, and PublicOpinion Expression: A Modification of the Spiral of Silence. Paper presented at theannual meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, FortLauderdale, Florida, May.

Glynn, C. J. and Park, E. (): Reference groups, opinion intensity, and publicopinion expression, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, , .

Glynn, C. J., Ostman, R. E., and McDonald, D. G. (): Opinions, perception, andsocial reality. In Glasser, T. L. and Salmon, C. T. (eds.) Public Opinion and theCommunication of Consent, New York, Guilford Press, pp. .

Glynn, C. J., Hayes, A. F., and Shanahan, J. (): Willingness to Speak Out and the Spiralof Silence: A Meta-Analysis. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Associationfor Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Anaheim, CA, August.

Glynn, C. J., Hayes, A. F., and Shanahan, J. (): Spiral of silence: A meta-analysis,Public Opinion Quarterly, , .

Gudykunst, W. B., Gao, G., Schmidt, K. L., Nishida, T., Bond, M., Leung, K., Wang,G., and Barraclough, R. A. (): The influence of individualism-collectivism,self-monitoring, and predicted-outcome value on communication in ingroup andoutgroup relationships, Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, , .

Habermas, J. (): Strukturwandel der Offentlichkeit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorieder burgerlichen Gesellschaft [The structural transformation of the public sphere: Aninquiry into a category of Bourgeois society], Neuwied, Luchterhand.

Hallemann, M. (): Peinlichkeit: Ein Ansatz zur Operationalisierung von Isolationsfurchtim sozialpsychologischen Konzept offentlicher Meinung [Embarrassment: An approachto measuring fear of isolation in the social-psychological concept of public opinion],Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Johannes Gutenberg-Universitat Mainz.

Halloran, J. (): An exercise in international research co-operation. In UnitedNations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (ed.) Communication in theCommunity, Paris, UNESCO, pp. .

Hardy, K. R. (): Determinants of conformity and attitude change, The Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, , .

Heider, F. (): Die Leistung des Wahnehmungssystems [The functions of theperceptual system], Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, , .

Heider, F. (): The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, nd edn, New York, Wiley.Heider, F. (): Uber Balance und Attribution [About balance and attribution]. In:

Gorlitz, D., Meyer, W.-U., and Weiner, B. (eds.) Bielefelder Symposium uber Attribution,Stuttgart, Klett, pp. .

Heider, F. and Simmel, M. (): An experimental study of apparent behavior,American Journal of Psychology, , .

Hovland, C. L. (): Reconciling conflicting results derived from experimental andsurvey studies of attitude change, The American Psychologist, , .

Hsu, F. L. K. (): The self in cross-cultural perspective. In Marsella, A. J., DeVos,G., and Hsu, F. L. K. (eds.) Culture and Self: Asian and Western Perspectives, NewYork, Tavistock, pp. .

Hui, C. H. and Triandis, H. C. (): Individualism and collectivism: A study ofcross-cultural researchers, Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, , .

Ikeda, K. (): Spiral of silence hypothesis and voting intention: A test in the Japanese national election, KEIO Communication Review, , .

Ito, Y. (): New directions in communication research from a Japanese perspective.In Gaunt, P. (ed.), Beyond Agendas: New Directions in Communication Research,Westport, CT, Greenwood Press, pp. .

Katz, C. and Baldassare, M. (): Using the L-Word in public: A test of the spiralof silence in conservative Orange County, California, Public Opinion Quarterly, ,.

Katz, E. (): Publicity and pluralistic ignorance: Notes on the spiral of silence .In Wartella, E., Whitney, D. C., and Windahl, S. (eds.) Mass Communication ReviewYearbook , Beverly Hills, CA, Sage, pp. .

Katz, E. and Lazarsfeld, P. F. (): Personal Influence: The Part Played by People inthe Flow of Mass Communications, Glencoe, IL, Free Press.

Kennamer, J. D. (): Self-serving biases in perceiving the opinions of others:Implications for the spiral of silence, Communication Research, , .

King, C. L. (): Public opinion in government. Introduction to Graves, W. B.(ed.) Readings in Public Opinion: Its Formation and Control, New York, Appleton, pp.xxixxxiv.

Klapper, J. T. (): The Effects of Mass Communication, New York, Free Press.Koka, K. (): Perception, Psychological Bulletin, , .Lasorsa, D. L. (): Political outspokenness: Factors working against the spiral of

silence, Journalism Quarterly, , .Latane, B. and Darley, J. M. (): Group inhibition of bystander intervention,

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, , .Lavrakas, P. J., Holley, J. K., and Miller, P. V. (): Public reactions to polling news

during the presidential election campaign. In Lavrakas, P. J. and Holley, J. K.(eds.) Polling and Presidential Election Coverage, Newbury Park, CA, Sage, pp. .

-

McAllister, I. and Studlar, D. T. (): Bandwagon, underdog, or projection? Opinionpolls and electoral choice in Britain, , Journal of Politics, , .

McLeod, J. M. and Blumler, J. G. (): The macrosocial level of communicationscience. In Chaee, S. and Berger, C. (eds.) Handbook of Communication Science,Beverly Hills, CA, Sage, pp. .

Merton, R. K. (): Social Theory and Social Structure, enlarged edn, New York,The Free Press.

Meeus, W. H. and Raaijmakers, Q. A. W. (): Theorie und Methode: Au-toritatsgehorsam in den Experimenten des Milgram-Typs: Eine Forschungsubersicht[An overview of theory and method: Obedience in the Milgram experiments],Zeitschrift fur Sozialpsychologie, , .

Milgram, S. (): Nationality and conformity, Scientific American, , .Miller, D. T. and Prentice, D. A. (): Collective errors and errors about the

collective, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, , .Moscovici, S. (): Social influence and conformity. In Lindzey, G. and Aronson,

E. (eds.) Handbook of Social Psychology. Volume II. Special Fields and Applications,rd edn, New York, Random House, pp. .

Moy, P., Domke, D. S., and Stamm, K. (): The Spiral of Silence and ArmativeAction: The Case of Washingtons Initiative . Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, St. Petersburg,FL, May.

Mutz, D. (): The influence of perceptions of media influence: Third person eectsand the public expression of opinions, International Journal of Public Opinion Research,, .

Mutz, D. C. (): The political eects of perceptions of mass opinion, Research inMicropolitics, , .

Navazio, R. (): An experimental approach to bandwagon research, Public OpinionQuarterly, , .

Neuwirth, K. J. (): Testing the spiral of silence model: The case of Mexico.Doctoral Dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. UMI Microform .

Neuwirth, K. and Ilundain, C. S. (): Family Communication Patterns and theSpiral of Silence. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Associationfor Public Opinion Research, Chicago, IL, November.

Newcomb, T. M. (): Attitude development as a function of reference groups: TheBennington study. In Sherif, M. (ed.) An Outline of Social Psychology, New York,Harper & Brothers, pp. .

Nisbett, R. E. and Kunda, Z. (): Perceptions of social distributions, Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, , .

Noelle-Neumann, E. (): The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion, Journalof Communication, , .

Noelle-Neumann, E. (): Menschen unter Konformitatsdruck. Eine Theorie deroentlichen Meinung [Human beings and the pressure to conform: A theory ofpublic opinion], Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, , February , .

Noelle-Neumann, E. (): Die Schweigespirale, uber die Entstehung der oentlichen

Meinung [The spiral of silence: The evolution of public opinion]. In Wilke, J. (ed.)Offentlichkeit als Bedrohung, Beitrage zur empirischen Kommunikationsforschung, nd,rev edn, Freiburg i.Br., Alber Broschur, pp. .

Noelle-Neumann. E. (): Neue Forschungen im Zusammenhang mit der Schwei-gespiralen-Theorie [More recent research on the spiral of silence theory]. In Saxer,U. (ed.) Politik und Kommunikation, Neue Forschungsansatze, Munchen, Olschlager,pp. .

Noelle-Neumann, E. (): The spiral of silence: A response. In Sanders, K. R.Kaid, L. L., and Nimmo, D. (eds.) Political Communication Yearbook , Carbondaleand Edwardsville, Southern Illinois University Press, pp. .

Noelle-Neumann, E. (): The theory of public opinion: The concept of the spiralof silence. In Anderson, J. A. (ed.) Communication Yearbook, , Newbury Park,CA, Sage, pp. .

Noelle-Neumann, E. (): Manifeste und latente Funktion oentlicher Meinung[Manifest and latent functions of public opinion], Publizistik, , .

Noelle-Neumann, E. (): The Spiral of Silence. Public OpinionOur Social Skin,nd edn, Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press.

Noelle-Neumann, E. (): Are we asking the right questions? Developing measure-ment from theory: The influence of the spiral of silence on media eects research.In Hamelink, C. J. and Linne, O. (eds.) Mass Communication Research: On Problemsand Policies. The Art of Asking the Right Questions. In Honor of James D. Halloran,Norwood, NJ, Ablex, pp. .

Noelle-Neumann, E. (): Public opinion and rationality. In Glasser, T. L. andSalmon, C. T. (eds.) Public Opinion and the Communication of Consent, New York,Guilford, pp. .

OGorman, H. J. and Garry S. L. (): Pluralistic ignorance: A replication andextension, Public Opinion Quarterly, , .

Oshagan, H. (): Reference group influence on opinion expression, InternationalJournal of Public Opinion Research, , .

Palmer, P. A. (): The concept of public opinion in political theory. In Essays inHistory and Political Theory: In Honor of Charles Howard McIlwain, Cambridge, MA,Harvard University Press, pp. .

Pollis, N. P. and Cammalleri, J. A. (): Social conditions and dierential resistanceto majority pressure, Journal of Psychology, , .

Price, V. (): On the public aspects of opinion: Linking levels of analysis in publicopinion research, Communication Research, , .

Price, C. and Allen, S. (): Opinion spirals, silent and otherwise: Applyingsmall-group research to public opinion phenomena, Communication Research, ,.

Putnam, L. L. and Wilson, C. E. (): Communicative strategies in organizationalconflicts: Reliability and validity of a measurement scale. In M. Burgoon (ed.)Communication Yearbook , Beverly Hills, CA, Sage, pp. .

Rahim, M. A. (): A measure of styles of handling interpersonal conflict, Academyof Management Journal, , .

-

Ross, L., Bierbrauer, G., and Homan, S. (): The role of attribution processes inconformity and dissent, American Psychologist, , .

Rucinski, D. and Salmon, C. T. (): The other as the vulnerable voter: A studyof the third-person eect in the U.S. presidential campaign, InternationalJournal of Public Opinion Research, , .

Salmon, C. T. and Kline, F. G. (): The spiral of silence ten years later: Anexamination and evaluation. In Sanders, K. R., Kaid, L. L., and Nimmo, D. (eds.)Political Communication Yearbook , Carbondale and Edwardsville, SouthernIllinois University Press, pp. .

Salmon, C. T. and Neuwirth, K. (): Perceptions of opinion climates andwillingness to discuss the issue of abortion, Journalism Quarterly, , .

Salmon, C. T. and Rucinski, D. M. (): Fear of Isolation from Whom? EnvironmentalCues and Willingness to Express Opinions on Controversial Issues. Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, New Orleans,LA, May.

Salwen, M. B., Lin, C., and Matera, F. (): Willingness to discuss ocial English:A test of three communities, Journalism Quarterly, , .

Sanders, K. R., Kaid, L.L., and Nimmo, D. (): Introduction. In Sanders, K. R.,Kaid, L.L., and Nimmo, D. (eds.) Political Communication Yearbook , Carbondaleand Edwardsville, Southern Illinois University Press, pp. xiiixxi.

Scheufele, D. A. (): Discussion or dispute? An exploratory study examiningdimensions of public opinion expression, International Journal of Public OpinionResearch, (), .

Sherif, M. (): Social Interaction: Process and Products, Chicago, IL, Aldine.Siegel, A. E. and Siegel, S. (): Reference groups, membership groups, and attitude

change. In Cartwright, D. and Zander, A. (eds.) Group Dynamics: Research andTheory, nd edn, New York, Harper & Row, pp. .

Skalaban, A. (): Do the polls aect elections? Some evidence, PoliticalBehavior, , .

Stran, P. D., Jr. (): The bandwagon curve, American Journal of Political Science,, .

Sudman, S. (): Do exit polls influence voting behavior? Public Opinion Quarterly,, .

Taylor, D. G. (): Pluralistic ignorance and the spiral of silence: A formal analysis,Public Opinion Quarterly, , .

Ting-Toomey, S. (): Intercultural conflict styles: A face-negotiation theory. InKim, Y. Y. and Gudykunst, W. B. (eds.) Theories in Intercultural Communication,Newbury Park, CA, Sage, pp. .

Tokinoya, H. (): Testing the spiral of silence in East Asia, KEIO CommunicationReview, , .

Tokinoya, H. (): A study on the spiral of silence theory in Japan, KEIOCommunication Review, , .

Tonnies, F. (): Kritik der offentlichen Meinung [A critique of public opinion], Berlin,Springer.

Triandis, H. C., Bontempo, R., Villareal, M. J., Asai, M., and Lucca, N. ():Individualism and collectivism: Cross-cultural perspectives on self-ingroup re-lationships, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, , .

Trubinsky, P., Ting-Toomey, S., and Lin, S. (): The influence of individualism-collectivism and self-monitoring on conflict styles, International Journal of InterculturalRelations, , .

Tyson, H. L. and Kaplowitz, S. A. (): Attitudinal conformity and anonymity,Public Opinion Quarterly, , .

Weimann, G. (): The influentials: Back to the concept of opinion leaders? PublicOpinion Quarterly, , .

Weimann, G. (): The Influentials: People who Influence People, Albany, NY, StateUniversity of New York Press.

Wei-ming, T. (): Selfhood and otherness in Confucian thought. In Marsella, A.J. DeVos, G., and Hsu, F. L. K. (eds.) Culture and Self: Asian and Western Perspectives,New York, Tavistock, pp..

Wertheimer, M. (): Drei Abhandlungen zur Gestalttheorie [Three essays about Gestalttheory], Berlin, Philosophische Akademie.

West, D. M. (): Polling eects in election campaigns, Political Behavior, ,.

Wilson, F. G. (): Concepts of public opinion, The American Political ScienceReview, , .

Zech, C. E. (): Leibensteins bandwagon eect as applied to voting, Public Choice,, .

Yang, S. (): Factors influencing willingness to speak out in the public sphere: Atest of the spiral of silence in Korea, Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Universityof Wisconsin-Madison.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTE

Dietram A. Scheufele is Assistant Professor in the Department of Com-munication at Cornell University. His current research focuses on the role ofpublic opinion and its expression in democratic societies and the political eectsof mass communication.

Patricia Moy is Assistant Professor in the School of Communications at theUniversity of Washington. Her research interests lie in the areas of publicopinion, political commmunication, and research methodology.

Correspondence regarding this paper should be addressed to Dietram A.Scheufele, Department of Communication, Cornell University, KennedyHall, Ithaca, NY , Phone: .., Fax: .., Email:das@cornell.edu.