CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING

Volume 18, Number 4, 2015

ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2014.0443

‘‘Was It Something I Said?’’ ‘‘No, It Was

Something You Posted!’’ A Study of the Spiral
of Silence Theory in Social Media Contexts

Sherice Gearhart, PhD,1 and Weiwu Zhang, PhD 2

Abstract

New media technologies make it necessary for scholars to reassess mass communication theories developed
among legacy media. One such theory is the spiral of silence theory originally proposed by Noelle-Neumann in
the 1970s. Increasing diversity of media content, selectivity, social networking site (SNS) interactivity, and the
potential for anonymity have posed various challenges to its theoretical assumptions. While application of the
spiral of silence in SNS contexts has been theorized, its empirical testing is scarce. To fill this void, the Pew
2012 Search, Social Networks, and Politics survey is used to test the theory. Results reveal that encountering
agreeable political content predicts speaking out, while encountering disagreeable postings stifles opinion
expression, supporting the spiral of silence theory in the SNS environment. However, certain uses of SNSs and
psychological factors demonstrate a liberating effect on opinion expression.

Introduction This study fills a void by testing the theory using the Pew
2012 Search, Social Networks, and Politics survey. It con-

T he spiral of silence theory focuses on the social

nature of human beings.1 Motivated by fear of social
isolation, individuals constantly examine the climate of
opinion. Individuals who perceive that the majority shares
their opinions demonstrate a greater tendency to share
opinions, while those in the minority conceal opinions. As a
result, the perceived dominant view gains momentum, while
alternatives become obscure, resulting in the spiraling effect.
Empirical testing conducted primarily in offline contexts
consistently offers significant but limited support.2 The ad-
vent of the Internet and social media has challenged the
tenability of the theory. Greater freedom of self-expression,
selectivity, anonymity, and social connection afforded in
social media environments could render the spiral of silence
theory unsustainable.3
It has been theorized that the spiral of silence can be ap-
plied to certain social networking sites (SNSs) such as
Facebook.4 Designed primarily to strengthen existing rela-
tionships, Facebook’s public nature provides an opportunity
to investigate this phenomenon because fear of isolation
might arise from appearing unpopular in this network.5 To
date, one study has tested the theory in an SNS setting.6 The
results provided empirical support for the spiral of silence
while assessing strategies for speaking out and remaining
silent in SNS contexts.
tributes to the spiral of silence research by investigating the
effects of the opinion climate, SNS use, and political activ-
ities on speaking out and remaining silent.
Literature Review
Spiral of silence theory
The spiral of silence theory examines how perceptions of
public opinion affect opinion expression. Motivated by fear
of isolation, individuals monitor the opinion climate con-
cerning controversial issues.1 Those who share the perceived
dominant opinion are likely to speak out, while the minority
is silenced, beginning a spiraling process that establishes the
prevailing opinion.1
Empirical work usually assesses willingness to express
opinions or remain silent as the dependent variable. Recent
tests have included strategic forms of opinion avoidance such
as expressing ambivalence.7 Including such strategies marks
a new approach to empirical tests.
Spiral of silence online
The Internet affords individuals access to diverse media
content, autonomy, and selectivity, making the theory diffi-
cult to sustain.4 For instance, anonymity may remove social

1
School of Communication, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska.
2
Department of Public Relations, College of Media and Communication, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas.

208
WAS IT SOMETHING I SAID?
restraints on expressing unpopular opinions.8 However,
support for online silencing effects has been identified. For
example, chatroom postings during a 1996 U.S. presidential
debate increased for the winning candidate and decreased for
the losing candidate.9 Using experimental chatrooms, mi-
nority opinion holders were perceived to be moderate and
concealed opinions.10 Comparison of willingness to partici-
pate in online and face-to-face focus groups found greater
willingness to participate in online anonymous discussions.11
Additional support was seen as respondents were less willing
to post comments in incongruent opinion climates.12
In sum, support for the spiral of silence phenomenon in
online settings has been acknowledged. The next step requires
considering contextual differences among online contexts.
SNSs and the spiral of silence
Certain semi-public SNSs are amenable for empirical tests.
For example, Facebook connections are based on existing
real-world networks, and users communicate by posting and
responding to content seen publically by connections.13
Empirical tests in SNSs require re-conceptualizing focal
variables used in offline settings (i.e., opinion climate, speak-
ing out, remaining silent). As in offline tests, the opinion cli-
mate is essential. This study considers the frequency of
encountering agreeable and disagreeable SNS content as one’s
opinion climate.
Similarly, opinion expression and suppression in SNSs
must be considered. Most tests conceptualize outcomes as
either opinion expression or silence.14,15 Scholars have ex-
plored alternatives.7,16 A rare empirical test in an SNS setting
proposed equivalent strategies such as posting opinions and
reading posts without commenting.6 Results showed tradi-
tional predictors, such as self-censorship and issue impor-
tance, predicted engagement in modified SNS response
strategies. Therefore, alternative outcomes can allow for ex-
amination of the phenomenon in SNS contexts.
Using Pew data,17 response strategies were identified.
Speaking out strategies include liking posted political con-
tent posting positive comments on content, and responding to
disagreeable posts. Research6 suggests that more time spent
on SNSs emboldens people to post comments. Therefore, the
following hypothesis is proposed:
H1: SNS use will be positively related to speaking out.
Previous work found public debate about social issues was
silenced on social media more than in face-to-face con-
texts.18 Therefore, the following is hypothesized:
H2: Negative reactions to political posts will be negatively
related to speaking out.
The following research questions are also proposed:
RQ1: How is the importance of SNSs for politics related
to speaking out?
RQ2: How is the amount of SNS political content related
to speaking out?
RQ3: How is the frequency of agreement with political
content related to speaking out?
RQ4: How is the frequency of disagreement with politi-
cal content related to speaking out?
209
Opinion avoidance strategies are also included7 but are
more difficult to identify because responding to social
prompts in SNSs is easily avoided. Identified silencing
strategies include ignoring political comments expressing
disagreeable opinions and refraining from posting content
due to fear of offending someone.
Research6 suggests that time spent on SNSs makes people
less likely to read comments without commenting. There-
fore, the following is proposed:
H3: SNS use will be negatively related to silencing.
Individuals who refrain from sharing points of view in
person also refrain from posting social media comments on
important issues.18 Therefore, the following is hypothesized:
H4: Negative reactions to political posts will be positively
related to silencing.
The following research questions are also posed:
RQ5: How is the importance of SNSs for politics related
to silencing?
RQ6: How is the amount of SNS political content related
to silencing?
RQ7: How is the frequency of agreement with political
content related to silencing?
RQ8: How is the frequency of disagreement with politi-
cal content related to silencing?
Method
Data were taken from the Pew 2012 Search, Social Net-
works, and Politics survey centered on SNS political dis-
cussion.19 A nationwide random-digit dialed survey was
conducted from January 20 to February 19, 2012. Adults
(N = 2,353) were contacted via landline (n = 1,352) or cellu-
lar (n = 901). Response rates were 11.1% for landline and
10.8% for cellular. Weights were corrected for data biases.
Dependent variables
Adaptations of speaking out and remaining silent in SNSs
were used. Speaking out was measured with three strategies
(liking political posts, posting positive comments, and re-
sponding to disagreeable posts). Silence was measured with
two strategies (ignoring disagreeable posts and refraining
from posting).
Liking political posts. Respondents were asked if they
ever clicked the ‘‘like’’ button in response to others’ political
posts. This behavior was reported by 47.4%, and responses
were dummy coded (0 = ‘‘no,’’ 1 = ‘‘yes’’).
Posting positive comments. Users were asked if they
ever posted a positive response to political posts. Behavior
engagement was reported by 38.6%, and responses were
dummy coded (0 = ‘‘no,’’ 1 = ‘‘yes’’).
Responding to disagreeable posts. Respondents were
asked if they responded to friend-made political postings
with which they disagreed. This was reported by 26.9%, and
responses were dummy coded (0 = ‘‘no,’’ 1 = ‘‘yes’’).
210
Ignoring disagreeable posts. Respondents were asked if
they ignore disagreeable friend-made political postings.
Among participants, 66.5% reported this behavior. Re-
sponses were dummy coded (0 = ‘‘no,’’ 1 = ‘‘yes’’).
Refraining from posting. Respondents were asked whe-
ther they decided against posting political content that may
risk offending others. This activity was reported by 22.5% of
respondents and was dummy coded (0 = ‘‘no,’’ 1 = ‘‘yes’’).
Independent variables
Predictors included general SNS use, user and friend
posting habits, frequency of agreement and disagreement
with political content, past negative experiences on SNSs,
and demographics served as controls.
Frequency of general SNS use. Participants were asked
how often respondents visited SNSs daily (1 = ‘‘less often’’
to 6 = ‘‘several times a day’’; M = 4.47, SD = 1.56).
Importance of SNSs for politics. A four-point scale
(1 = ‘‘not at all important,’’ 4 = ‘‘very important’’) was used
to ask participants about the importance of SNSs for (a)
keeping up with politics, (b) debating/discussing political
issues, (c) finding others who shared political views, and (d)
recruiting people to get involved with political issues. An
index was formed (M = 1.90, SD = 0.85, a = 0.87).
Posted political content. Respondents were asked how
much of their own and their friends’ recently posted content
was related to politics or the 2012 elections (1 = ‘‘all or al-
most all of it’’ to 5 = ‘‘none at all’’). The scale was reverse
coded for self-posted (M = 1.60, SD = 0.96) and friend-posted
content (M = 2.27, SD = 0.98).
Frequency of agreement. On a 4-point scale (1 = ‘‘never’’
to 4 = ‘‘always or almost always’’), this item measured how
frequently respondents encountered agreeable political posts
(M = 2.24, SD = 0.72).
Frequency of disagreement. Using the scale above, this
item examined how often respondents encountered dis-
agreeable political posts (M = 2.14, SD = 0.65).
Receiving negative reactions. This item asked if re-
spondents had ever received a strong negative reaction to
postings. This behavior was reported among 63.3% of re-
spondents and were dummy coded (0 = ‘‘no,’’ 1 = ‘‘yes’’).
Demographics. Respondents consisted of 51.3% females
with an average age of 46 years (SD = 18.26) and education
beyond high school (SD = 1.71). The majority reported race
as white (76.2%), which was dummy coded (0 = ‘‘other,’’
1 = ‘‘white’’). Respondents were moderately conservative
(SD = 1.03) with an average income ranging from $30,000 to
$50,000 (SD = 2.46).
Results
H1 predicted a positive relationship between SNS use and
speaking out. Frequent SNS use increased the likelihood of
‘‘liking’’ political posts (b = 0.20, p < 0.001), posting positive
GEARHART AND ZHANG
comments (b = 0.17, p < 0.001), and responding to disagree-
able posts (b = 0.09, p = .002). Therefore, H1 was supported.
RQ1 explored the relationship between importance of
SNSs for politics and speaking out. Results showed indi-
viduals attaching more importance to SNSs for politics were
likely to ‘‘like’’ political content (b = 0.07, p = 0.03) and re-
spond to disagreeable posts (b = 0.19, p < 0.001). However,
importance did not influence posting positive comments.
RQ2 investigated the relationship between the amount of
political content posted and speaking out. The more political
content individuals posted, the more likely they would post
positive comments (b = 0.12, p < 0.001) and respond to dis-
agreeable posts (b = 0.23, p < 0.001). Frequently encounter-
ing friends’ political posts enhanced the likelihood of posting
positive responses (b = 0.07, p = 0.03).
RQ3 examined linkages between frequency of agreement
and speaking out. Frequent agreement with posted political
opinions increased the likelihood of ‘‘liking’’ posts (b = 0.11,
p < 0.001) and posting comments (b = 0.07, p = 0.03). Con-
versely, those who frequently agreed with content were un-
likely to respond to disagreeable posts (b = - 0.14, p < 0.001).
RQ4 explored the relationship between frequency of dis-
agreement and speaking out. Frequent disagreement was re-
lated to posting positive comments on agreeable content
(b = 0.09, p = 0.004). However, this was not related to speak-
ing out.
H2 predicted a negative relationship between receiving
negative reactions and speaking out. Receiving negative re-
actions enhanced the likelihood of ‘‘liking’’ posts (b = 0.09,
p = 0.004) and posting positive comments (b = 0.08, p =
0.005), opposing the hypothesis. However, receiving nega-
tive reactions was negatively related to responding to dis-
agreeable posts (b = - 0.17, p < 0.001). Therefore, limited
support for H2 was identified (see Table 1).
H3 predicted a negative relationship between general SNS
use and silencing. Results showed SNS use exerted a nega-
tive influence on ignoring disagreeable posts (b = - 0.12,
p < 0.001), but not on refraining from posting. Therefore, H3
was partially supported.
RQ5 investigated the relationship between importance of
SNSs for politics and silencing. Those placing high importance
on SNSs for politics were less likely to ignore disagreeable
posts (b = - 0.09, p = 0.005). However, SNS importance did
not influence users’ tendency to refrain from posting.
RQ6 examined the relationship between posting politi-
cal content and silencing. Frequent political content posters
were less likely to ignore disagreeable posts (b = - 0.24,
p < 0.001). However, self-posted political content was not
related to refraining. It was also revealed that friend-posted
political content did not predict silence.
RQ7 explored if frequency of agreement was related to
silencing. Results found that frequent agreement enhanced the
likelihood that users would ignore disagreeable posts (b = 0.12,
p < 0.001) and refrain from posting content (b = 0.07, p = 0.04).
RQ8 investigated the relationship between frequency of
disagreement and silencing. Frequent disagreement posi-
tively predicted refraining from posting (b = 0.10, p = 0.001),
but not ignoring disagreeable posts.
H4 predicted a positive relationship between receiving
negative reactions and silencing. Individuals who received a
negative reaction were more likely to refrain from posting
content (b = 0.08, p = 0.01). However, receiving negative
WAS IT SOMETHING I SAID? 211

Table 1. Hierarchical Regression Analyses Table 2. Hierarchical Regression Analyses

Predicting Speaking Out Strategies Predicting Silencing Strategies
Respond to Ignore political Refrain
Liking Posting posts one posts one from
political positive disagrees disagrees with posting
posts comments with
Demographics
Demographics Sex (female) - 0.04 0.03
Sex (female) 0.06 0.01 0.03 Age - 0.09** - 0.06
Age - 0.05 - 0.05 0.05 Education 0.13*** 0.03
Education 0.13*** 0.15*** - 0.10** Race (Caucasian) 0.19*** 0.05
Race (Caucasian) 0.00 - 0.08** - 0.20*** Ideology (liberal) - 0.03 0.07*
Ideology (liberal) 0.10** 0.10** 0.09** Income - 0.03 0.05
Income 0.14*** 0.09** 0.03 R2 (%) 6.2%*** 2.7%***
2
R (%) 8.9%*** 6.9%*** 7.3%*** SNS uses and content posting
SNS uses and content posting Freq. of SNS use - 0.12*** - 0.03
Freq. of SNS use 0.20*** 0.17*** 0.09** Importance of SNS - 0.09** - 0.02
Importance of SNS 0.07** 0.05 0.19*** for politics
for politics Self-posted political content - 0.24*** - 0.04
Self-posted political - 0.00 0.12*** 0.23*** Friend-posted political 0.03 0.05
content content
Friend-posted - 0.04 0.07* - 0.03 Incremental R2 (%) 9.4%*** 0.3%
political content
Opinion climate
Incremental R2 (%) 5.0%*** 8.0%*** 12.6%*** Freq. of agreement 0.12*** 0.07*
Opinion climate Freq. of disagreement - 0.01 0.10**
Freq. of agreement 0.11*** 0.07* - 0.14*** Received negative reaction - 0.20*** 0.08**
Freq. of disagreement 0.03 0.09** 0.01 Incremental R2 (%) 5.5%*** 1.7%***
Received negative 0.09** 0.08** - 0.17*** Total R2 (%) 21.0% 4.7%
reaction
Incremental R2 (%) 1.6%*** 1.4%** 5.1%*** Note: The beta weights are final standardized regression coeffi-
Total R2 (%) 15.5% 16.3% 24.9% cients.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
Note: The beta weights are final standardized regression coeffi-
cients.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
likely to censor themselves, exemplifying the spiral of si-
lence effect.
Users who reported receiving negative feedback in SNSs
reactions was negatively related to ignoring disagreeable
were also more likely to ‘‘like’’ and post positive affirma-
postings (b = - 0.20, p < 0.001). Therefore, H4 was partially
tions on agreeable political postings. This means users are
supported (see Table 2).
more likely to interact with like-minded others. This is par-
ticularly troubling because limiting interaction with like-
minded others drives attitude extremity,20 demonstrating a
Discussion
potential ‘‘dark side’’ of social media, which boosts soli-
The purpose of this study was to test the tenability of the darity among homogeneous groups.
spiral of silence theory in an SNS context. Overall, findings Frequently encountering agreeable postings increased the
show that many aspects of the theory still hold up and some tendency to click the ‘‘like’’ button and post positive affir-
aspects require modification in an SNS context. mations. Thus, online and offline opinion climates induce
One major contribution of this study is the identification of similar behaviors. Additionally, users regularly encountering
SNS-specific response strategies (i.e., speaking out and re- like-minded information are unwilling to publically dispute
maining silent) that are equivalent to strategies utilized in posts. Silence is further demonstrated as users refrain from
offline tests of the spiral of silence theory. Similar to the posting due to fear of others’ reactions and tend to ignore
proposed use of opinion expression avoidance strategies in incongruent content. Findings support the impression man-
face-to-face settings,7 results provide relevant new forms of agement contention of the theory; that is, because people
opinion expression and avoidance in SNS contexts. want to appear favorable, they actively choose not to post
Concerning the opinion climate, results are in line with the original content or to post responses.21
spiral of silence theory; that is, congruent opinion climates On the contrary, findings also demonstrate influences of
encourage speaking out, while incongruent opinion climates SNS use and other factors in liberating opinion expression.
foster silence. The strongest evidence is that SNS users who General SNS use is positively related to speaking out and
have received negative reactions to political postings are less negatively related to ignoring posts. This supports research
likely to respond to disagreeable posts and are more likely to finding that well-versed SNS users value freedom of ex-
refrain from posting their own content due to fear of others’ pression and place lower value on privacy.22 Additionally,
reactions. More simply, individuals who have received a users placing high importance on SNSs for political activities
strong negative reaction to their politically related posts are are unlikely to ignore disagreeable posts and are more likely
212
to respond to such posts. Therefore, SNS uses and the value
placed on them may encourage opinion expression, working
against the theory. Results mirror offline research that has
found that politically interested individuals are more willing
to opine.23
Frequent political posters are more likely to post agreeable
and disagreeable content, suggesting politically involved
individuals are likely to speak out. Furthermore, they are less
likely to ignore disagreeable opinions. Sharing content on
SNSs signals opinion intensity, a known predictor of
speaking out.23–26 Therefore, both general and specific SNS
use serve as contingent conditions in online environments.
User-posted content serves as both media and interper-
sonal communication. Frequently encountering like-minded
political posts enhances chances of offering positive affir-
mation. Therefore, results mirror previous offline tests find-
ing interpersonal political discussion predicts speaking out.27
Overall, results show that the spiral of silence theory is
alive and well in certain online environments such as Face-
book given its social and quasi-public nature. Varying SNS
uses and encountered opinion climates produce differential
results. In other words, opinion expression in SNSs may
exert dual silencing and liberating effects.
Social media is a mass medium based upon interpersonal
communication, changing the way mass media is conceptu-
alized. Although many findings are in line with the basic
theoretical contention, changes resulting from new techno-
logy challenge researchers to consider circumstances re-
volving around media use as a variable central to the effects
process.4 This study represents an initial attempt to investigate
the role of SNS uses and opinion climates in the dynamics of
the theory. Future tests should examine psychological attri-
butes, such as willingness to self-censor, known to be influ-
ential in the spiral of silence process. Additionally, identified
contingent conditions should be examined to identify behav-
ioral factors that might attenuate the spiral of silence effect.
Acknowledgments
Data were taken from the Pew Research Center’s Internet
and American Life Project February 2012 survey Search,
Social Networks, and Politics.
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
References
1. Noelle-Neumann E. The spiral of silence: a theory of public
opinion. Journal of Communication 1974; 24:43–51.
2. Glynn CJ, Hayes AF, Shanahan J. Perceived support for
one’s opinions and willingness to speak out: a meta-analysis
of survey studies on the ‘‘spiral of silence.’’ Public Opinion
Quarterly 1997; 61:452–463.
3. Moy P, Hussain MM. (2014) Media and public opinion in a
fragmented society. In Donsbach W, Salmon CT, Tsfati Y,
eds. The spiral of silence: new perspectives on communication
and public opinion. New York: Routledge, pp. 92–100.
4. Metzger MJ. (2009) The study of media effects in the era of
Internet communication. In Nabi RL, Oliver MB, eds. The
Sage handbook of media processes and effects. Los An-
geles, CA: Sage, pp. 561–576.
GEARHART AND ZHANG
5. boyd d, Ellison N. Social network sites: definition, history,
and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Commu-
nication 2007; 13:210–230.
6. Gearhart S. Zhang W. Gay bullying and online opinion ex-
pression: testing spiral of silence in the social media envi-
ronment. Social Science Computer Review 2014; 32:18–36.
7. Hayes A. Exploring the forms of self-censorship: on the
spiral of silence and the use of opinion expression avoidance
strategies. Journal of Communication 2007; 57:785–802.
8. Chaffee S, Metzger MJ. The end of mass communication?
Mass Communication & Society 2001; 4:365–379.
9. Wanta W, Dimitrova D. (2000) Chatrooms and the spiral of
silence: an examination of online discussions during the final
1996 U.S. presidential debate. Paper presented at the Inter-
national Communication Association, Acapulco, Mexico.
10. McDevitt M, Kiousis S, Wahl-Jorgensen K. Spiral of
moderation: opinion expression in computer-mediated
communication. International Journal of Public Opinion
Research 2003; 15:454–470.
11. Ho SS. McLeod DM. Social-psychological influences on
opinion expression in face-to-face and computer-mediated
communication. Communication Research 2008; 35:190–207.
12. Yun GW, Park, S-Y. Selective posting willingness to post a
message online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Commu-
nication 2011; 16:201–227.
13. de Zuniga HG, Jung N, Valenzuela S. Social media use for
news and individuals’ social capital, civic engagement and
political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication 2012; 17:319–336.
14. Bassili JN. The minority slowness effect: subtle inhibitions
in the expression of views not shared by others. Journal of
Personality & Social Psychology 2003; 84:261–276.
15. Huge ME, Glynn CJ. Hesitation blues: does minority
opinion status lead to delayed responses? Communication
Research 2012; 40:287–307.
16. Neuwirth K, Fredrick E, Mayo C. The spiral of silence and fear
of isolation. Journal of Communication 2007; 57:450–468.
17. Pew Internet & American Life Project. (2012) Search, so-
cial networks, and politics. http://www.pewinternet.org/
datasets/february-2012-search-social-networks-and-politics/
(accessed Oct. 8, 2012).
18. Hampton KN, Rainie L, Lu W, et al. (2014) Social media
and the ‘‘spiral of silence.’’ www.pewinternet.org/files/2014/
08/PI_Social-networks-and-debate_082614.pdf (accessed
Nov. 26, 2014).
19. Rainie L, Smith A. (2012) Social networking sites and
politics. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life
Project.
20. Binder AR, Dalrymple KE, Brossard D, et al. The soul of a
polarized democracy: testing theoretical linkages between
talk and attitude extremity during the 2004 presidential
election. Communication Research 2009; 36:315–340.
21. Noelle-Neumann E. Turbulences in the climate of opinion:
methodological applications of the spiral of silence theory.
Public Opinion Quarterly 1977; 41:143–158.
22. Swigger N. The online citizen: is social media changing
citizens’ beliefs about democratic values? Political Beha-
vior 2013; 35:589–603.
23. Baldassare M, Katz C. Measures of attitude strength as
predictors of willingness to speak to the media. Journalism
& Mass Communication Quarterly 1996; 73:147–158.
24. Glynn CF, Park E. Reference groups, opinion intensity, and
public opinion expression. International Journal of Public
Opinion Research 1997; 9:213–232.
WAS IT SOMETHING I SAID? 213

25. Moy P, Domke D, Stamm D. The spiral of silence and Address correspondence to:
public opinion on affirmative action. Journalism & Mass Dr. Sherice Gearhart
Communication Quarterly 2001; 8:7–25. School of Communication
26. Salmon CT, Neuwirth K. Perceptions of opinion ‘‘clima- University of Nebraska at Omaha
tes’’ and willingness to discuss the issue of abortion. 6001 Dodge Street
Journalism Quarterly 1990; 67:567–577. Omaha, NE 68182
27. Neuwirth K. Testing the spiral of silence model: the case of
Mexico. International Journal of Public Opinion Research
2000; 12:138–159. E-mail: sgearhart@unomaha.edu
Copyright of CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking is the property of Mary Ann
Liebert, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.