Running head: SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT

Spirals Into Fragmentation: Rethinking the Spiral of Silence for Reference Groups in the New Media Environment Andrew D. Pritchard North Dakota State University

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT Abstract The new media environment has empowered groups to produce media for their members, and spiral of silence theorizing must account for differences in internal media among groups. Suggested theoretical modifications include the realization that in-group media likely will be more influential than the mass media on group members; increased emphasis on the powers of media as media; and the likelihood of multiple, contradictory spirals of silence on a topic rather than one societywide effect. Keywords: spiral of silence, public opinion, media, fragmentation, reference groups

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT Spirals Into Fragmentation: Rethinking the Spiral of Silence for Reference Groups in the New Media Environment Despite being a macrosocial theory, the spiral of silence (Noelle-Neumann, 1974, 1979, 1984, 2001) typically is tested at the micro level of the interpersonal or small group interaction. Even the theorys creator used this approach, and it has added more nuance to the theory and revealed more forces at work than might have been detected exclusively through mass-public survey data. However, virtually all such approaches have neglected a vital component of the theory: the role of media. Media are not merely accessories to the processes Noelle-Neumann describes. They are the linchpin of the theory, the means by which the individual is able to perceive which opinions are dominant or outcast in the vastness of modern society. While it might once have been true that media influences were approximately the same at any given time for each member of

society, the dissipation of the media as a phenomenon and the advent of the fragmented media environment rank high among the forces defining the closing years of the twentieth century and the dawn of the twenty-first (e.g., Chaffee & Metzger, 2001; Couldry, 2009). This new media environment has endowed groups with the ability to create their own media channels and products, with messages uniquely influential for the groups members. The omission of this micro-level media influence from work on the spiral of silence thus becomes significant. It surely represents a gap in empirical knowledge about social communication and a methodological problem for future spiral of silence research. But it also, most importantly, stands as an impediment to theorizing the full complex of factors whose interplay determines whether the spiraling effect occurs at all, who within a group is most relevant to triggering it, and the possibility that drastic changes in the media environment could

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT turn the effect of a completed spiral on its head into irresolvable fragmentation rather than irresistible conformity.

This analysis argues that the spiral of silence should be reconceptualized for the new media environment by drawing closer connections among three bodies of literature: first, studies of the media audience fragmentation that has occurred since Noelle-Neumann developed her theorys central pillars; second, evidence for the influence of reference groups (as opposed to the mass public) on individual opinion, which already has been identified as a factor in the decision to speak or stay silent; and, third, demonstrations of the persuasive effects of media as media, regardless of whether their scope is societywide or limited to a small group. Finally, some promising possibilities are suggested for retheorizing the fragmented and localized future of spirals of silence.

Spiral of Silence Theory and the Role of Media Spiral of silence theory (Noelle-Neumann, 1974, 1979, 1984, 2001) proposes that the psychology of the individual in society is overwhelmingly predisposed to respond to perceptions of which opinions are in the majority or the minority, which are safely acceptable or dangerously radical, and which are gaining ascendancy or losing their place in the public square. Out of a fundamental desire by the social individual to avoid the pain, deprivation, and danger of isolation, the individual silences him- or herself from expressing views he or she perceives are unpopular. Each person who so chooses contributes to the perception that the idea or view in question must not be expressed, signaling to others that they should remain silent as well, and thus triggering the spiraling effect that eventually leaves only a committed few hardcores willing to express the now-fringe perspective. Considerable, though equivocal, evidence has been amassed in support of the theorys central contentions (for reviews, see Glynn, Hayes, & Shanahan, 1997; Hayes, 2007; Jeffres,

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT

Neuendorf, & Atkin, 1999; Moy, Domke, & Stamm, 2001; Price & Allen, 1990; Salmon & Moh, 1992).

My purpose, however, is not to review the empirical findings in detail; let it suffice to say that enough evidence has been produced to warrant continued deployment and development of the theory. Rather, the argument here is that the way in which empirical studies have theorized the spiral of silence process to construct tests of its dynamics at the interpersonal and small-group levels and interpret their outcomes ignores the role of the new media environment in shaping those interactions and therefore leaves important possibilities unexplored. This argument begins, then, with the importance of media influences in the spiral of silence theory. If media are central to the mechanics of a spiral of silence, fundamental changes in the media environment will necessarily change the way the spiral of silence is conceptualized. The first component that spiral of silence theory proposes, the fear of social isolation or expulsion, necessarily predates the mass media by centuries if it is to be accepted as NoelleNeumann describes it (Noelle-Neumann, 1979). But the reach and power of the mass media have given the fear of social isolation a new intensity. Two of the medias most important powers, Noelle-Neumann writes, are the power to single out scapegoats and the corresponding power to deny them a forum for their defense while giving ample attention to the accusations against them. These twin powers are the source of a profound helplessness the individual feels in the face of the onslaught of media ideas (Noelle-Neumann, 1984, pp. 154-155). The role of media in the second component of a spiral of silence has become axiomatic, almost clich. If individuals monitor the climate of public opinion, such observation must be conducted through the media. Although individuals can form impressions of what everyone thinks based on personal experience, [s]omething unique happens . . . as soon as the spiral of silence starts to develop in public; it is this blending with publicity that gives the process its irresistible force. The element of public attention is brought into the process most effectively

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT through the mass media (Noelle-Neumann, 1984, p. 154). But what distinguishes the spiral of silence from other frameworks as a theory about media rather than one that merely includes

media? Four factors may be discerned: First, spiral of silence theory emphasizes that news media content results from deliberate choices by the journalists who produce it, choices that reflect not merely their assessment of the person or topic presented but a broader view of who societys majorities and minorities are. Second, spiral of silence theory ties the medias agenda-setting, cultivating, or modeling powers into a base motive deep within the psych of the social individual. The medias influence is not left to stand as a mere voting preference, a particular behavior option among many, or a mental image of the world that can be disspelled by rational thought. Third, spiral of silence theory makes a necessary premise explicit: the power to confer attention on persons, ideas, or causes necessarily comes paired with the power to deny attention to their opponents. Spiral of silence theory depicts a double effect of the media that shapes the climate of opinion more deliberately for the medias part and more powerfully on the level of individual psychology than is presented in other theorizations of media effects. Fourth, the ubiquity of modern media changes the quality of the message as the individual processes it. Rather than remaining alien to the individual, as with the direct appeal of an orator, media depictions mingle with the individuals firsthand experiences and observations until they are no longer distinct. The perception of which opinions are majority or minority, safe or dangerous, is determined as the individual adopts the eyes of the media and acts accordingly (NoelleNeumann, 1984, p. 169). In the third component of a spiral of silence, the choice to speak or remain silent, media are involved directly and indirectly. Their indirect influence flows from the combination of what has been said: they reinforce the fear of isolation by and from society, and they depict which expressed views will trigger that fate and which will avoid it. But media, Noelle-Neumann

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT contends, also influence this choice directly by furnishing, or declining to furnish, the raw materials from which effective arguments may be formulated: If people find no current, frequently repeated expressions for their point of view, they lapse into silence; they become effectively mute (Noelle-Neumann, 1984, p. 173). This she labels the medias articulation

function. Even advocates of the majority view, the theory holds, are unable to formulate effective arguments without media supplying them. Media thus are able to promote a spiral of silence twice: first by stoking the fear of isolation to induce individuals to silence themselves, then again by refusing to supply the ingredients of persuasive advocacy to those still willing to speak. Noelle-Neumanns view of media in a spiral of silence is by no means totalizing or deterministic. She acknowledges that, although the two streams of information are conflated in the individuals mind, direct experience remains a source independent of the media for determining what public opinion is and which views transgress its limits (Noelle-Neumann, 1984, pp. 167-168). For the present analysis, however, it is enough that media influence be understood as consistent, forceful, and omnipresent enough to constitute a central and essential driving mechanism of a spiral of silence. To ignore the role of media is to strip the spiral of silence theory of its power, of an explanation for how this effect can be triggered across the vastness and diversity of modern mass society. Thus, the role of media must be accounted for both in empirical spiral of silence studies and in any refinement of the theory as a result. Any profound changes in the media environment also will change how media influence should be accounted for, certainly in method, but also in theory.

Fragmentation in the New Media Environment Since the 1960s and 70s, the media environment in developed countries has changed in both size and diversity. These developments have prompted calls for revision of media theories

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT developed during decades of one-directional communication from a much smaller set of sources (e.g., Bennett & Iyengar, 2008, 2010; Chaffee & Metzger, 2001; Katz, 1996; Sunstein, 2007, 2009; Webster, 2005, 2011). Indeed, some scholars argue that the very terms used to construct media theories including media effects (Bennett & Iyengar, 2008; Schulz, 2004), mass communication (Chaffee & Metzger, 2001), and the media (Couldry, 2009) no longer symbolize the reality current media users experience and co-create. Bennett and Iyengar (2008) have criticized research that persists in theoretical assumptions developed in a simpler media environment. Addressing the field of political communication, they write: . . . [C]ontemporary work typically gives only passing thought to necessary theoretical, conceptual, and methodological adjustments. The general focus remains on adding new findings to established categories of study such as the ever-popular subfields of framing, priming, agenda setting, and so on. The inevitable result is that the field is adrift theoretically, seldom looking back to see where foundational modern theory needs to be adapted and, in some cases, overthrown, in order to keep pace with the orientations of late modern audiences, and new modes of content production and information delivery. (Bennett & Iyengar, 2008, p. 713) The extent of the transformation of the media environment since Noelle-Neumanns work

indicates the necessity of accounting for these changes if the spiral of silence theory is to remain viable. Fragmentation in the Media Environment The new media environment is often characterized as fragmented, though no universally agreed definition of the concept has emerged. Tewksbury (2005) defines fragmentation in terms of the mass publics loss of a shared base of knowledge, resulting from

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT

greater media diversity. Given that there is a finite set of news topics from which to choose, he writes, long-term patterns of topical focus could result in fragmentation, the creation of porously bordered groups of people who know something about specific parts of the social world but perhaps little else (Tewksbury, 2005, p. 333). Emphasizing media access and content, McCombs (2005) argues that fragmentation should be applied to the media environment only if two conditions obtain. First, a large proportion of the public must have Internet access and regularly select differing sources of news; and, second, these news sources must reflect highly divergent agendas that do not merely replicate the highly redundant agenda-setting of the traditional news media. But the mere fact that the current media environment allows even the potential for new players to establish independent news agendas represents a significant challenge to longstanding assumptions about the mass media. Senders and sources. The sender of a mediated message, for example, is no longer a reality-defining Leviathan. One of the foundational assumptions of mass media research, control of the means of media production by a handful of corporate producers, no longer holds true (Chaffee & Metzger, 2001). Even for local news and information, the most recent research reveals a richer and more nuanced ecosystem of community news and information than researchers have previously identified (Rosenstiel, Mitchell, Purcell, & Rainie, 2011, p. 1), one in which media producers emphasize their unique niche. As Couldry (2009) points out, it has become nearly impossible to generalize about the media as a unified source of a message, because the senders of these messages have become increasingly numerous and diverse. Moreover, even traditional corporate advertisers and media outlets routinely target audience segments rather than the mass public (Tewksbury, 2005) or intentionally polarize their audiences by making clear who is or is not welcome (Turow, 1997).

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT Messages. The messages now sent through media are no longer shaped exclusively by

10

the interests of corporate content producers, and they are no longer exclusively one-directional. In addition to simply being more numerous (Bennett & Iyengar, 2008), messages increasingly are crafted by people who also can be classed as members of the receiving audience (Schulz, 2004). Thus, an assumption that had held true since Gutenberg imprinted his name in the history books that media products must also be standardized for mass production to reap economic rewards has failed (Schulz, 2004; see also Chaffee & Metzger, 2001). A major obstacle to adapting existing media theory to the new media environment is the fact that much theorizing was developed on the basis of television studies. Schulz (2004) suggests this focus is too narrow to support a vast label such as media effects and offers televisualization (p. 94) as a substitute. Chaffee and Metzger (2001) point out that it was the Internets very purpose to be a decentralized communication system, and it therefore should not be surprising that, as the Internet replaces television as the paradigmatic medium, the media environment reflects decentralization of both message production and content selection. Media: plural, and increasingly so. The decline of the one-directional message and the increasingly ability to respond on the part of those who once were merely receivers has fueled the proliferation not merely of messages and information but also of the media channels in which messages may be exchanged (Schulz, 2004). Thus, the assumption once readily made in mass communication research that mass-communicated messages wielded power in large part because they were available in a finite number of channels no longer holds (Chaffee & Metzger, 2001). However, the existence of a large number of media channels does not imply that they wield equal power, a further reason they cannot meaningfully be subsumed under the same label. The triumph of the active receiver. The individual receiver of media messages also has changed profoundly, becoming an active user (Ruggiero, 2000) who participates in multiple

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT media audiences. Gone is the community hearth of television (Selnow, 1998, p. 184), the common habits of media consumption imposed by a scarcity of sources (Couldry, 2009). A

11

users directed retrieval of information has replaced mere dissemination (Schulz, 2004, p. 94; see also Chaffee & Metzger, 2001). For news media, the individual user is able to opt out of consumption entirely (Bennett & Iyengar, 2008; Prior, 2007; Warner 2010). Even users who do choose to consume information from traditional news media sources now can restrict the topics (Tewksbury, 2003) and viewpoints to which they are exposed (Bennett & Iyengar, 2008; Hollander, 2008). Media interpretation: the social context. Changes in media technology and consumption patterns also have challenged prevailing understandings of the dynamics of interpreting and assigning meaning to media messages, as well as the assumption that the experience is approximately the same for every member of the mass public. Bennett and Iyengar (2008, p. 717) suggest the term stratementation for the phenomenon in which Americans no longer all receive the same news information, becoming stratified and fragmented as part of the same social process. They contend that the decline of a single, shared interpretation of news media content has made understanding the social dynamics of interpretation in general increasingly important, especially because the end of a shared media experience has been accompanied by decreased participation in other social institutions that once facilitated the interpretive process (Bennett & Iyengar, 2008). The new media environments consequences for theorizing These observations about the new media environment establish that media theorizing premised on few and powerful sources of messages, one-directional communication, and common interpretation stemming from a shared societywide media experience will fail to accurately describe, explain, or predict in the context of media uses or media effects. As Bennett

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT

12

and Iyengar (2008) point out, failure to reflect sociotechnological reality in research paradigms is bad in itself, because it calls into question the validity of the resulting empirical research and results in unproductive scholarly feuds. Additionally, because one of the functions of theory is to instruct the researcher about the value of possible objects of study (Kuhn, 1970), shortcomings in media theorizing increase the risk that massive effects of certain kinds of media uses or content will be left undetected (Bennett & Iyengar, 2008). So, must all media-effects theories be abandoned in favor of strictly individualized, psychological approaches emphasizing media use decisions? Not if one accepts the view proposed by Chaffee and Metzger (2001) that, for mass media studies, the media, not the mass, is the operative term and that media theories, particularly those that have room for active audiences and selective exposure, might take on an even larger role in the study of communication. Schulz (2004) suggests that a concept of mediatization can unify the study of old and new media by focusing on processes and functions that remain important regardless of whether the media are mass or some newer format. Implications for spiral of silence theorizing. Despite its foundation in individual psychological needs, which would be amenable to a media landscape of fragmentation and choice, spiral of silence theory postulates not merely an individual decision but rather a macrosocial phenomenon in which such decisions are communicated to other members of society considering a similar choice. The spread of this spiraling effect requires that the psychological aspect of the theory be inextricably interwoven with a role for media. As control of the media passes from the few to the many, and as the audience fragments accordingly, controlling the depiction of which opinions are in the majority or minority becomes increasingly difficult. To the extent that the spiral of silence presupposes an agenda-setting function the ability to establish the importance of the issues on which one is in

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT

13

the majority or minority the power of any one media producer or even a consortium of them will be diminished (see Bennett & Iyengar, 2008, pp. 708-709; Chaffee & Metzger, 2001, pp. 374-375). Indeed, it is increasingly difficult even to guarantee that a depiction would be seen by significant segment of the public. Jeffres, Jian, and Atkin (2009), while acknowledging Barack Obamas ability to mobilize young voters, note that spiral of silence theorizing is problematic when tuned out youth find public affairs and the news media irrelevant (p. 98). At the same time, the increasing power of dissenters, even beyond the persistent hardcores, to generate their own media products will enhance their ability to ignore the opinions and depictions of others, or even to persuade one another that they are in fact the majority. The media no longer will be able to disempower the minority by refusing to perform the articulation function of providing the words in which to express its views; the minority, through its media, can perform that function for itself. Furthermore, the media power NoelleNeumann describes to single out scapegoats and simultaneously deprive them of channels in which to offer a defense seems difficult to maintain in a world of both fragmenting audiences to hear the denunciation and proliferating channels for offering rebuttal. Especially if the miniaudiences created by fragmentation are inclined to be antagonistic toward one another (Sunstein, 2007), being scapegoated by one group is likely to become a badge of honor in another. So, does the spiral of silence have a future? Yes, but only if as with other media effects theories the right questions are asked and the theory is tested by its actual propositions, not by merely replicating how it was tested during the media era dominated by television. Spiral of silence theory is well positioned to adapt itself with the solution suggested, in a more general context, by Chaffee and Metzger (2001) and Schulz (2004): by recognizing that the media, with or without the mass, is the agent of spreading the silencing decision from one person to another, and thereby allowing the spiral of silence to be conceptualized in communication

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT research as a sociological question rather than an exclusively psychological one. The spiral of silence would not be made any less a social force by being understood as a force that can be

14

resisted through ones choices of media or placement among the many possible media audiences. Both theorizing and empirical research would find ample work in articulating the media choices or audience environment relevant to maintaining that resistance and how it might be possible to strategically remove them. Indeed, as discussed in the next section, theorizing about the consequences of fragmenting the media audience into smaller groups combines well with work on group dynamics to create a foundation for reinvigorating spiral of silence theory.

Fragmentation, Reference Groups, and the Spiral of Silence The spiral of silence theory has met with mixed results in empirical testing (Glynn, Hayes, & Shanahan, 1997; Glynn & McLeod, 1984; Jeffres, Neuendorf, & Atkin, 1999; Katz & Baldassare, 1992; Lee, Detenber, Willnat, Aday, & Graf, 2004; Louis, Duck, Terry, & Lalonde, 2010; Moy, Domke, & Stamm, 2001; Neuwirth, Frederick, & Mayo, 2007; Price & Allen, 1990; Salmon & Moh, 1992; Salmon & Neuwirth, 1990; Salwen, Lin, & Matera, 1994; Shanahan, Scheufele, Yang, & Hizi, 2004). In efforts to refine it, the influence of groups more proximate to the individuals mind than the mass public has been explored and urged as a research priority (Glynn & Park, 1997; Jeffres, Jian, & Atkin, 2009; Moy, Domke, & Stamm, 2001; Oshagan, 1996; Price & Allen, 1990). Such approaches draw on the psychological concept of reference groups (e.g., Gurin, Hurtado, & Peng, 1994; Hyman, 1960; Shibutani, 1955; Wade & Gelso, 1998) to argue for the existence of micro-climates of opinion that exert more pressure to conform than the climate of opinion in society at large (Moy, Domke, & Stamm, 2001, p. 9). A reference group can be any and all groups that influence the attitude and behaviour of individuals (Dawson & Chatman, 2001). Such groups generally are divided into two broad

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT

15

categories: normative reference groups that communicate standards for how an individual should behave, and comparative reference groups that point individuals toward relevant others against which to judge themselves (Dawson & Chatman, 2001). Given that one of the key functions of any kind of reference group is dispensing rewards or punishments for conformity or nonconformity to group norms (Oshagan, 1996), incorporation of this mechanism into production of a spiral of silence seems a logical connection. However, despite showing the influence of this concept, the empirical tests to date reflect a shortcoming in spiral of silence theorizing by failing to account for the existence of media unique or unusually meaningful to one or more of a study participants reference groups. Derived from the train test of the theorys creator (Noelle-Neumann, 1984, pp. 16-18), the standard measures of willingness to speak are survey questions that measure willingness to express oneself in an interpersonal or small group encounter with people of either supportive or opposed opinions (Hayes, 2007, pp. 786-788). Typical hypotheticals include a group at a social gathering discussing a controversial topic (e.g., Glynn & McLeod, 1984, p. 734; Lee et al., 2004, p. 210; Moy, Domke, & Stamm, 2001, p. 13; Neuwirth, Frederick, & Mayo, 2007, pp. 456-457; Shanahan et al., 2004, pp. 418-419), conversation with a stranger in a public place or mode of public transportation (e.g., Louis et al., 2010, pp. 660-661; Salmon & Neuwirth, 1990, p. 573; Salwen, Lin, & Matera, 1994, p. 284; Shanahan et al., 2004, pp. 418-419), or the imagined reaction of acquaintances if ones views became known (Glynn & Park, 1997, p. 222; Neuwirth, Frederick, & Mayo, 2007, pp. 456-457). When media are taken into account, they are the large, institutional, societywide mass media, not the new media forms created, circulated, and consumed within reference groups especially salient to the individual. The meta-analysis by Glynn et al. (1997) noted media in spiral of silence studies only to ask whether respondents would express their opinion to a

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT

16

member of the media (e.g., TV interviewer, radio station host) (p. 459). More recent studies, if they examine media at all, have shown a similar understanding of what media are relevant. Louis et al. (2010, pp. 660-661), for example, tested for willingness to discuss ones opinion with a reporter, the archetypal representative of institutional, centrally controlled mass media. One could interpret reporter or even media to mean such smaller-scale sources as the local newspaper or independent radio station, influential within the reference group of ones geographic community. Examining whether community characteristics affect willingness to speak about community problems, Jeffres, Jian, and Atkin (2009) provided a place for community media or the community newspaper (p. 100) in the communication climate of the individuals they studied. However, their hypothesis was phrased in terms of involvement in the community media/communication system (p. 101), which neglects the possibility that a local or reference group communication system expressed at least in part through media might differ greatly from a communication system expressed exclusively in face-to-face encounters. The relevant survey question probed the extent to which respondents learn about community activities and problems from the community newspaper (p. 104), which yields no insight into the extent to which the newspaper (or any other medium) shapes the opinion micro-climate. An earlier work, by Jeffres, Neuendorf, and Atkin (1999), did acknowledge that different media can hold greater power over public opinion in one group than another. This study asked respondents to express their views about the racially charged O.J. Simpson trial, then asked if they would let the interviewer quote their comments in an article for either a local AfricanAmerican newspaper or the citys major daily. Respondents differed along racial lines in their willingness to allow their statements to appear in each publication, providing an empirical foundation for supposing that media do differ not only in the size but also in the characteristics of their spiral of silence influences. However, the data on this point reflected the studys primary

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT purpose, investigating race-group influences, rather than refining the place of the media themselves in spiral of silence theorizing. The choice of research problem in these studies is understandable. However, they

17

nonetheless illustrate the absence of a reference groups unique internal media environment as a variable when the spiral of silence theory is tested at this level. A theoretical omission that might once have been harmless becomes, in light of the changing media environment, perhaps the principal impediment to the continued relevance of the spiral of silence theory. The wellestablished ability of groups to influence not just the behaviors but also the attitudes and beliefs of their members (Cherry, 1985; Hornsey, Majkut, Terry, & McKimmie, 2003; Isenberg, 1986; Janis, 1982; Moscovici & Zavalloni, 1969; Sunstein, 2009) suggests that, in an environment of competing media audiences, reference group media might exert even more influence on a reference groups members than the mass media did on the mass audience of past decades. If, as Salwen, Lee, and Matera (1994) found in their study of three geographic communities, perception of support from local media (explicitly distinguished from national media [p. 283]) increased willingness to speak out, the content of media prominent in ones even-morelocal reference group would be essential to assessing which views could be expressed safely. The key point for spiral of silence theorizing is not a sweeping assertion that all media for specialized audience segments constitute reference group media. Some media might not attain salience within a reference group, including some media produced within or targeted to it. Rather, the spiral of silence requires that the individual feel the pressure of public opinion through the media (Noelle-Neumann, 1984, p. 154); put more specifically, the media influence the individuals perception of what can be said or done without danger of isolation (NoelleNeumann, 1984, p. 156). Therefore, only when an individual feels sufficiently bound to a

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT

18

reference group to feel the weight of its approval or disdain should media that are recognized as at least partially constitutive of the groups life be termed reference group media. Reference Group Media: Are They the Same? Are They Different? Yes. But is the reference group, as a portion of the fragmented media audience, truly analogous to the mass society of spiral of silence theorizing? Public opinion as Noelle-Neumann described it is a seemingly inescapable force. Can the same really be true of a reference group one is free to leave if its micro-climate of opinion becomes too hostile or restrictive? The first answer to this objection is the one might not, in fact, be free to leave a reference group. A reference group based on race, ethnicity, skin color, primary language, or place of birth might not be escapable under any circumstances, particularly if the larger society imposes a reference-group membership by unshakeable tradition or prejudice. An individual might have no alternative reference groups available within which to establish social bonds, or adherence to the reference group might be, virtually or literally, a matter of survival. Inability to leave the group would create a desire to stay on good terms with other members and therefore subject one to public-opinion pressures no less forceful in quality for their being imposed by a smaller number of people than the entire society. The second, perhaps more widely applicable, answer is suggested by Warner (2010), who links the dynamics of opinion formation within a group to social identity theory. In Warners view, pre-existing opinions drive media audience fragmentation into groups formed around media products or sources that reinforce those opinions. The individuals incorporation of group membership into his or her identity triggers a tendency to denigrate out-groups and adopt progressively more extreme beliefs in support of the group and its views. For purposes of the spiral of silence, it should make little difference whether the group is formed as Warner describes or by some other source of commonality, such as race, religion, or occupation. Ability to produce

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT media especially for their members gives reference groups a potent new tool to enhance their members identification with the group and therefore to magnify the threat represented by the potential loss, the isolation and rejection, the death of ones self-image, that can be imposed by the severing of those social bonds. A spiral of silence, while fueled by media, occurs within

19

individual cognition. The fact the one can, when viewed objectively, leave the reference group does not mean the member can from his or her perspective. A second objection to asserting the influence of reference group media might ask: Can it be assumed that reference group media necessarily will differ significantly from the influences exerted by the truly mass media? In a time of rapid, profound, and multifaceted media change, this assumption should not be accepted without question any more than prevailing axioms about mass media should be uncritically maintained. However, it does seem reasonable to investigate whether, just as the interpersonal dynamics of reference groups can establish internal majorities or norms than run counter to those in the wider society (McGuire, McGuire, Child, & Fujioka, 1978), their media, too, might present symbols and messages that differ from those dominant in the mass media. Given that the mass medias symbols and messages must be generic enough to be understood by the mass public (Gerbner, 1998), depictions presented by reference group media for a narrower audience might prove even more potent than mass-media messages. The point is that, given the deepening diversity of media producers, message variety, and audience fragmentation, it has become feasible for reference groups to produce media that fulfill the same functions within the reference group that the mass media perform for the wider society. It thus becomes reasonable to inquire whether reference group media produce effects within micro-climates of opinion, including silencing of certain views, even if (or especially where) the mass media have lost the analogous power to do so within the wider society.

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT Media and Interpersonal Influences Within Reference Groups

20

One final contention will round out this argument: consideration of what might be gained by studying the media of a reference group rather than improving methods for studying interpersonal encounters among reference group members. If a reference groups media reflect the groups norms, why suppose that the influence of those media will differ from the influence exerted by exchanges between group members in person? Especially if the reference group is small and close at hand (physically or communicatively), why suppose the use of media within the reference group will produce any change its ability to generate a spiral of silence? A treasure trove of responses is found in the work done on small-group dynamics, usually in a workplace, comparing the groups performance and its members perceptions depending upon whether its business is conducted face-to-face or via electronic media. The empirical work has elucidated the general principle that media do change the nature and outcomes of a groups processes, though not in every case, nor in simple or readily predictable ways. Whether the variable of interest is group cohesion (Lira, Ripoll, Peir, & Zornoza, 2008) or identification (Rockmann, Pratt, & Northcraft, 2007), decision-making time (Baltes, Dickson, Sherman, Bauer, & LaGanke, 2001), member satisfaction with the group (Baltes et al., 2001; Lira et al., 2008), the effect of members familiarity with one another (Adams, Roch, & Ayman, 2005), performance on communication-intensive tasks (Li, 2007), fulfillment of socioemotional needs (Li, 2007; Lira et al., 2008), the groups belief that it can be effective (Lira et al., 2008), or patterns of conflict escalation (Dorado, Medina, Munduate, Cisneros, & Euwema, 2002) and conflict management (Zornoza, Ripoll, & Peir, 2002), mediated and face-to-face groups show different dynamics and outcomes. Media as media do matter. The work by Lount, Park, Kerr, Mess, and Seok (2008) illustrates particularly well how research on media in small groups is poised to contribute to understanding spirals of silence. The

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT researchers examined participants desire to avoid assessment by a partner as the one who

21

performed worse on their joint task. Participants working in physical proximity to their partners performed better than participants connected by media to virtual co-workers. The results were consistent with several organizational theories sharing roots in the desire to avoid a negative evaluation (Lount et al., 2008, p. 806) exactly the trigger mechanism for a spiral of silence. Yun and Park (2011) used spiral of silence theory in their study demonstrating that users of an online discussion board, although shielded by anonymity, were less likely to post a particular opinion if they thought the climate of opinion in the online forum was against them. Though not addressing reference groups, this work makes a substantial contribution to the role of new media in spirals of silence. A number of theoretical propositions have been tested and refined in an attempt to establish why mediated communication differs from face-to-face interactions, including explanations emphasizing the absence of nonverbal social cues in a mediated interaction; the diminished degree of social presence (the sense that a communication partner is really there) in mediated communication; and the varying degrees of richness or leanness of communication channels, with face-to-face communication the richest and text-only modes the leannest (Burke, Aytes, Chidambaram, & Johnson, 1999; Li, 2007). Although staples of the small-group literature, these concepts remain strangers to spiral of silence theorizing. Coordinating the lines of inquiry would give spiral of silence researchers more specific guidance on what phenomena to measure. It follows necessarily that, if reference groups are key to fully understanding spirals of silence (or understanding them where they are most likely to occur), and if the fragmentation of the media environment and the evolution of the media consumer also has increased the mediatization of communication within reference groups, spiral of silence theorizing must take

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT these trends into account. The changing directions of media forces cannot be ignored by any social theory that wishes to remain relevant, and certainly not by a theory that posits media representation as a cornerstone.

22

Where Shall We Look and What Might We Find? Suppose, then, that all the foregoing is accepted: the spiral of silence is a theory rooted in media, the nature of the media environment has changed, and both method and theory must adapt to account for new variables and questions. What does the present argument offer as the next step in the evolution of the spiral of silence? First, spiral of silence theorizing should accept that the relationship of reference groups to their members has changed qualitatively in the new media environment. Reference groups are not merely performing an amplified version of a role they have long held, that of assisting the individual in interpreting messages from the mass media. With expanded availability of the means of media production, reference groups are themselves the origin of the media messages that impress upon their members which views are in the majority or minority, and which are ascending or descending in popularity and acceptability. Future spiral of silence theorizing should not envision reference groups as different flowers of understanding that nonetheless share roots in the same media soil. The individuals who participate in these groups thus should cease to be treated as interchangeable members of a mass society. Future spiral of silence work should qualify its conclusions by specifying the reference group affiliations (and associated social identities) for whom a given proposition will be valid. It also should account for the individuals practice of more nuanced public-opinion assessment to navigate competing reference group loyalties in a society lacking a consistent set of messages about which opinions are preferred.

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT Second, if changes in the media environment amount to a 180-degree reversal of the nature of media control, then research and theorizing should explore the possibility of a full reversal of the expected direction of a spiral of silence. A unified media environment could produce a spiral of one viewpoint into near-silence across the whole society. A fragmented

23

media environment raises the likelihood that a micro-climate of opinion in one reference group will spiral one viewpoint into silence while a competing viewpoint is the perspective selected for banishment in a different reference group with its own opinion micro-climate. From a macrosocial perspective, the spiraling on a particular topic would be not one spiral but many, working at cross-purposes, within reference groups whose micro-climates of opinion operate more or less independently of one another. The endpoint, then, likely would not be the spiral into conformity that Noelle-Neumann envisioned but rather what might be called a spiral into fragmentation a society of reference groups unable to process or perhaps even acknowledge one anothers views on an issue. The consequences of such a development for public discourse, self-governance, identity formation, and intersubjective meaning-making deserve thorough theoretical and empirical exposition. Third, if such a spiral into fragmentation were to occur, the dual climate of opinion that Noelle-Neumann (1984, p. 168) described as a rarity would become increasingly important. Initially conceptualized as a disconnect between the views one perceives as dominant from interpersonal encounters and those depicted as dominant through the media, a dual (or fragmented) climate of opinion could characterize any situation in which an individual participated in reference groups that each had spiraled into a different internal conformity on a topic. If this onetime rarity of theory becomes a reality of social life, will individuals withdraw from competing reference groups? Adopt elaborate schemata to manage the cognitive

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT dissonance? Withdraw to positions of absolute neutrality? Use the support of one reference group to assume hardcore nonconforming positions in another?

24

Fourth, spiral of silence theorizing should leave room to accommodate different ratios of mediated versus face-to-face communication within reference groups. Groups in close physical proximity might make less use of media than geographically dispersed groups, and therefore representations of favored and disfavored viewpoints, the groups emerging consensus on a topic, would be communicated with different dynamics. Here again, a closer partnership between media studies and small-group communication research would be beneficial, as work on small groups has found that mediated communication among strangers differs from that among colleagues who also know each other in the face-to-face world (Adams et al., 2005). Finally, as spiral of silence theorizing deepens to accommodate a changed media environment, it should remain continually open to the fact that the media environment is not done changing, that new modes and purposes of mediated communication will continue to expand the theorys objects of analysis, and that comparisons to past work will need to be done with increasing care as concepts defined and operationalized according to older technology and practices take on new meanings. To give but one example, the much-cited study by Zornoza et al. (2002), though only a decade old, already suffers from its limitation of understanding computer-mediated communication as a lean medium that encompassed only text, while audiovisual communication was in a separate category (pp. 502, 504). Imprecise use of terms such as computer-mediated communication in future theorizing could complicate the project of formulating consistent and useful propositions.

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT Conclusion

25

Regardless of the precise way in which the spiral of silence is theorized going forward, it must be adapted to the new media environment. As a theory rooted in media, the spiral of silence must change as markedly as media have changed. As a theory of individual social cognition, the spiral of silence must account for the fragmentation of the media sources through which individuals assess public opinion. As a theory whose propositions are detectable in interpersonal and small-group interactions, the spiral of silence must note that those interactions increasingly occur through media channels. If the principal influences on the individuals assessment of public opinion are mass media and his or her reference groups, a social change in which the former hold less power over media messages and the latter acquire more cannot help but affect the expected outcome of the theorys predictions. The process of empirically testing these changes, conceptualizing their meaning, and absorbing the new propositions into spiral of silence theory will require time, effort, and the perceptiveness to see beyond assumptions constructed in a fading media era. But if the spiral of silence theory is to remain useful and relevant, it must engage in the foundational reforms now required of all longstanding media effects theories.

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT References Adams, S. J., Roch, S. G., & Ayman, R. (2005). Communication medium and member familiarity: The effects on decision time, accuracy, and satisfaction. Small Group Research, 36, 321-353. doi: 10.1177/1046496405275232

26

Baltes, B. B., Dickson, M. W., Sherman, M. P., Bauer, C. C., & LaGanke, J. (2002). Computermediated communication and group decision making: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 156-179. doi: 10.1006/obhd.2001.2961 Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2008). A new era of minimal effects? The changing foundations of political communication. Journal of Communication, 58, 707-731. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2008.00410.x Bennett, W. L., & Iyengar, S. (2010). The shifting foundations of political communication: Responding to a defense of the media effects paradigm. Journal of Communication, 60, 35-39. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2009.01471.x Burke, K., Aytes, K., Chidambaram, L., & Johnson, J. J. (1999). A study of partially distributed work groups: The impact of media, location, and time on perceptions and performance. Small Group Research, 30, 453-490. doi: 10.1177/104649649903000404 Chaffee, S. H., & Metzger, M. J. (2001). The end of mass communication? Mass Communication & Society, 4, 365-379. Cherry, D. L. (1985). Newspaper peoples significant others: Ethics as a function of reference groups. Newspaper Research Journal, 6(3), 33-46. Couldry, N. (2009). Does the media have a future? European Journal of Communication, 24, 437-449. doi: 10.1177/0267323109345604

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT Dawson, E. M., & Chatman, E. A. (2001). Reference group theory with implications for information studies: A theoretical essay. Information Research, 6(3). Retrieved from http://informationr.net/ir/6-3/paper105.html.

27

Dorado, M. A., Medina, F. J., Munduate, L., Cisneros, I. F. J., & Euwema, M. (2002). Computermediated negotiation of an escalated conflict. Small Group Research, 33, 509-524. doi: 10.1177/104649602237168 Gerbner, G. (1998). Cultivation analysis: An overview. Mass Communication & Society, 1, 175194. Glynn, C. J., Hayes, A. F., & Shanahan, J. (1997). Perceived support for ones opinions and willingness to speak out: A meta-analysis of survey studies on the spiral of silence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 452-463. Glynn, C. J., & McLeod, J. M. (1984). Public opinion du jour: An examination of the spiral of silence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 731-740. Glynn, C. J., & Park, E. (1997). Reference groups, opinion intensity, and public opinion expression. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 9, 219-232. Gurin, P., Hurtado, A., & Peng, T. (1994). Group contacts and ethnicity in the social identities of Mexicanos and Chicanos. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 521-532. doi: 10.1177/0146167294205009 Hayes, A. F. (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. Hollander, B. A. (2008). Tuning out or tuning elsewhere? Partisanship, polarization, and media migration from 1998 to 2006. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85, 23-40.

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT

28

Hornsey, M. J., Majkut, L., Terry, D. J., & McKimmie, B. M. (2003). On being loud and proud: Non-conformity and counter-conformity to group norms. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 319-335. Hyman, H. H. (1960). Reflections on reference groups. Public Opinion Quarterly, 24, 383-396. Isenberg, D. J. (1986). Group polarization: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1141-1151. Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiascoes. 2nd ed. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co. Jeffres, L. W., Jian, G., & Atkin, D. (2009). Voicing complaints in the public arena. Ohio Communication Journal, 47, 97-112. Jeffres, L. W., Neuendorf, K. A., & Atkin, D. (1999). Spirals of silence: Expressing opinions when the climate of opinion is unambiguous. Political Communication, 16, 115-131. Katz, C., & Baldassare, M. (1992). Using the L-word in public: A test of the spiral of silence in conservative Orange County, California. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 232-235. Katz, E. (1996). And deliver us from segmentation. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 22-33. Kuhn, T. E. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lee, W., Detenber, B. H., Willnat, L., Aday, S., & Graf, J. (2004). A cross-cultural test of the spiral of silence theory in Singapore and the United States. Asian Journal of Communication, 14, 205-226. Li, S. S. (2007). Computer-mediated communication and group decision making: A functional perspective. Small Group Research, 38, 593-614. doi: 10.1177/1046496407304335

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT Lira, E. M., Ripoll, P., Peiro, J. M., & Zornoza, A. M. (2008). The role of information and communciation technologies in the relationship between group effectiveness and group potency: A longitudinal study. Small Group Research, 39, 728-745. doi: 10.1177/1046496408323481 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.

29

Lount, R. B., Jr., Park, E. S., Kerr, N. L., Messe, L. A., & Seok, D. (2008). Evaluation concerns and the Kohler effect: The impact of physical presence on motivation gains. Small Group Research, 39, 795-812. doi: 10.1177/1046496408323215 McCombs, M. (2005). A look at agenda-setting: Past, present, and future. Journalism Studies, 6, 543-557. doi: 10.1080/14616700500250438 McGuire, W. J., McGuire, C. V., Child, P., & Fujioka, T. (1978). Salience of ethnicity in the spontaneous self-concept as a function of ones ethnic distinctiveness in the social environment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 511-520. Moscovici, S., & Zavalloni, M. (1969). The group as a polarizer of attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 125-135. Moy, P., Domke, D., & Stamm, K. (2001). The spiral of silence and public opinion on affirmative action. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 7-25. Neuwirth, K., Frederick, E., & Mayo, C. (2007). The spiral of silence and fear of isolation. Journal of Communication, 57, 450-468. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00352.x Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 24, 43-51.

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT Noelle-Neumann, E. (1979). Public opinion and the classical tradition: A re-evaluation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43, 143-156.

30

Noelle-Neumann, E. (1984). The spiral of silence: Public opinion our social skin. American edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Noelle-Neumann, E. (2001). Commentary. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 13, 59-60. Oshagan, H. (1996). Reference group influence on opinion expression. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 336-354. Price, V., & Allen, S. (1990). Opinion spirals, silent and otherwise: Applying small-group research to public opinion phenomena. Communication Research, 17, 369-392. doi: 10.1177/009365090017003005 Prior, M. (2007). Post-broadcast democracy: How media choice increases inequality in political involvement and polarizes elections. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Rockmann, K. W., Pratt, M. G., & Northcraft, G. B. (2007). Divided loyalties: Determinants of identification in interorganizational teams. Small Group Research, 38, 727-751. doi: 10.1177/1046496407304924 Rosenstiel, T., Mitchell, A., Purcell, K., & Rainie, L. (2011). How people learn about their local community. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Ruggiero, T. E. (2000). Uses and gratifications theory in the 21st century. Mass Communication & Society, 3, 3-37. Salmon, C. T., & Moh, C. (1992). The spiral of silence: Linking individual and society through communication. In J. D. Kennamer (Ed.), Public opinion, the press, and public policy (pp. 145-161). Westport, CT: Praeger.

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT Salmon, C. T., & Neuwirth, K. (1990). Perceptions of opinion climates and willingness to discuss the issue of abortion. Journalism Quarterly, 67, 567-577.

31

Salwen, M. B., Lin, C., & Matera, F. R. (1994). Willingness to discuss official English: A test of three communities. Journalism Quarterly, 71, 282-290. Schulz, W. (2004). Reconstructing mediatization as an analytical concept. European Journal of Communciation, 19, 87-101. doi: 10.1177/0267323104040696 Selnow, G. W. (1998). Electronic whistle-stops: The impact of the Internet on American politics. Westport, CT: Praeger. Shanahan, J., Scheufele, D., Yang, F., & Hizi, S. (2004). cultivation and spiral of silence effects: The case of smoking. Mass Communication & Society, 7, 413-428. Shibutani, T. (1955). Reference groups as perspectives. American Journal of Sociology, 60, 562-569. Sunstein, C. R. (2007). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Sunstein, C. R. (2009) Going to extremes: How like minds unite and divide. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Tewksbury, D. (2003). What do Americans really want to know? Tracking the behavior of news readers on the Internet. Journal of Communication, 53, 694-710. Tewksbury, D. (2005). The seeds of audience fragmentation: Specialization in the use of online news sites. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 49, 332-348. Turow, J. (1997). Breaking up America: The dark side of target marketing. American Demographics, 19, 51-54. Wade, J. C., & Gelso, C. J. (1998). Reference group identity dependence scale: A measure of male identity. The Counseling Psychologist, 26, 384-412. doi: 10.1177/0011000098263002

SPIRAL OF SILENCE IN THE NEW MEDIA ENVIRONMENT

32

Warner, B. R. (2010). Segmenting the electorate: The effects of exposure to political extremism online. Communication Studies, 61, 430-444. doi: 10.1080/10510974.2010.497069 Webster, J. G. (2005). Beneath the veneer of fragmentation: Television audience polarization in a multichannel world. Journal of Communication, 55, 366-382. Webster, J. G. (2011). The duality of media: A structurational theory of public attention. Communication Theory, 21, 43-66. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01375.x Yun, G. W., & Park, S. (2011). Selective posting: Willingness to post a message online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 16, 201-227. doi: 10.1111/j.10836101.2010.01533.x Zornoza, A., Ripoll, P., & Peiro, J. M. (2002). Conflict management in groups that work in two different communication contexts: Face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Small Group Research, 33, 481-508. doi: 10.1177/104649602237167