Spiral of Silence and Science

Now in its fourth decade since first proposed by German pollster Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann, spiral of silence or SOS theory continues to attract interest and maintain its relevance today. The theory spans individual, organizational, and societal levels; assumes a social constructionist stance (that is, it assumes that reality as we perceive it is socially produced); and includes elements of both mediated and interpersonal communication. It has as its core the notion that one's own opinions and (in particular) one's willingness to express them is influenced by others' opinions. While not specifically a theory of media influence, SOS theory rests in part on an understanding of people's dependence on the media for information—including information about what other people seem to be thinking.

In its simpler, static form, the theory works as follows: Prior experience motivates individuals to avoid social isolation, and people develop and use what is sometimes referred to as a “quasi-statistical sense” to assess the distribution of others' opinions, remaining silent about their own views when they feel that present or future majority opinion likely opposes their position on a controversial issue. Similarly, individuals perceiving a present or future trend in their favor are more inclined to voice their opinion.

In the dynamic form of the theory, with the passage of time, individuals lessen or increase their inclination to voice their opinion in a manner consistent with their perceptions of majority opinion. A reduced rate of opinion expression occurs when individuals with opinions thought to be in the minority (although possibly in the actual majority from an outside observer's viewpoint), acting out of fear of socially isolating themselves, remain silent rather than risk social sanction. In turn, falling silent changes the perception of the relative distribution of opinions, which causes still more people to fall silent. This results in the spiral from which the theory takes its name.

As portrayed so far, SOS theory appears to suggest that once a spiral is set in motion, all people favoring the minority viewpoint eventually should fall silent. Yet the empirical existence of “pockets” of minority opinion that never quite disappear requires further elaboration. To address this issue, Noelle-Neumann credits strong ties to primary and reference groups and selective exposure to supportive media content as important sources of social support that facilitate resistance to the pressures to conform. Individuals who continue to speak out on issues regardless of possible sanctions are labeled “hard core” and “avant-garde”; the former term refers to their resistance to change or suppression, the latter term to their advocacy in favor of change.

In addition, Noelle-Neumann differentiates between situations that change slowly, if at all, and circumstances of rapid opinion shift. The former are often exemplified by strong established norms and customs, where a person most clearly must express an opinion endorsed by the vast majority (for example, anti-cannibalism) or face social isolation. The latter involve situations in which opinions are uncertain, disputed, or in flux (for example, abortion on demand) and where individuals will try, if possible, to express an opinion that can be revealed without the individual's becoming isolated. What appears to unite these two rather disparate situations is the existence or emergence of what others have termed injunctive norms—that is, socially required opinions and actions based on moral beliefs—for which majority opinion is a readily available index.

...