The DOI matches its Crossref record.
TWENTY-FIVE YEARS OF THE SPIRAL OF SILENCE: A CONCEPTUAL REVIEW AND EMPIRICAL OUTLOOK
Abstract
Numerous studies have been conducted on the spiral of silence since Noelle-Neumann (1974) formulated the theory a quarter of a century ago. As a whole, these studies draw upon different conceptualizations, employ inconsistent operationalizations, and give short shrift to imintportant macroscopic variables. Such inconsistencies potentially account for substantial prointportions of the variance in spiral of silence effects. This paper examines these three areas in greater detail. First, we review key assumptions and theoretical statements of the spiral of silence. Second, we examine how these conceptual issues translate into operational ones. Finally, we outline areas that have remained largely unexplored over the last 25 years. Specifically, we contend that spiral of silence studies in different cultures have failed to take into account culture-specific variables that may mitigate the imintportance of opinion perceptions as predictors of individual behavior or attitudes. In other words, cross-cultural differences are key factors in predicting speaking-out, the key dependent variable in spiral of silence research. As a result, we call for the return to a more macroscopic focus in spiral of silence research.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“These detrimental associations relate to the ‘spiral of silence’ idea, that is, the notion that people’s willingness to express their political opinions online depends on the perceived popularity of their opinions (see relevant overview articles53,54).”
From A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy (2022) · cites this paper as [53]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Slater, M. D. (2007) · Communication Theory · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2007.00296.x · Cited by 1,064
Spirals of Silence: The Dynamic Effects of Diversity on Organizational Voice*
Bowen, F., & Blackmon, K. (2003) · Journal of Management Studies · doi:10.1111/1467-6486.00385 · Cited by 582
A systematic review of worldwide causal and correlational evidence on digital media and democracy
Lorenz-Spreen, P., Oswald, L., Lewandowsky, S., & Hertwig, R. (2022) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-022-01460-1 · Cited by 348
Biotechnology and the American Media
Nisbet, M. C., & Lewenstein, B. V. (2002) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/107554700202300401 · Cited by 317
Science communication as political communication
Scheufele, D. A. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1317516111 · Cited by 313
Metadata
- Authors
- Scheufle, D. A., & Moy, P.
- ORCID
- Moy, Patricia
- Venue
- International Journal of Public Opinion Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-03-01
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 3-28
- ISSN
- 0954-2892 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-6909
- OpenAlex
- W2099668057
- Cited by
- 331
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 20 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 14.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Public Opinion Research (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › News Media Framing and Political Communication
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
- Keywords
- spiral of silence, Noelle-Neumann, cross-cultural comparison, macroscopic variables, attitude expression, conceptualization and operationalization
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
