The Self-Censoring Majority: How Political Identity and Ideology Impacts Willingness to Self-Censor and Fear of Isolation in the United States
Open accessAbstract
The spiral of silence theory suggests that those who hold a contrary opinion to the majority tend to remain silent; however, social media may be flipping this upside down. The majority may remain silent to the hardcore vocal minority, implying a self-censoring majority. This study examines the spiral of silence theory, and the effect of political identity and ideology has on the willingness to self-censor and the fear of isolation with social media use. Through a survey distributed through a Qualtrics panel to participants that mirror the US census ( N = 1,047), this study investigates political identity and ideology by examining self-censorship and fear of isolation of social media users. Results identify significant differences with self-censorship and identity politics between strong conservatives and liberals in comparison to the majority in the middle. Differing political ideologies seem to have an impact on fear of isolation between democrats and conservatives.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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?
Significant ideological differences in self-censorship practices and fears of isolation exist, and political identity influences individuals' willingness to engage in public discourse.
“Burnett et al. [69] highlights significant ideological differences in self-censorship practices and fears of isolation, showing how political identity influences individuals' willingness to engage in public discourse”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [69]
Platform dynamics can invert traditional silencing mechanisms, allowing a vocal minority to overshadow the silent majority, particularly in ideologically polarized contexts.
“This inversion allows a vocal minority to overshadow the silent majority, particularly in ideologically polarized contexts.”
From A systematic review of echo chamber research: comparative analysis of conceptualizations, operationalizations, and varying outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as [69]
Cites
Yarchi, M., Baden, C., & Kligler-Vilenchik, N. (2021) · Political Communication · doi:10.1080/10584609.2020.1785067 · Cited by 437 · see citing works
Matthes, J., Knoll, J., & von Sikorski, C. (2018) · Communication Research · doi:10.1177/0093650217745429 · Cited by 269 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Hartmann, D., Wang, S. M., Pohlmann, L., & Berendt, B. (2025) · Journal of Computational Social Science · doi:10.1007/s42001-025-00381-z · Cited by 59 · see citing works
The Platformization of Violence: Toward a Concept of Discursive Toxicity on Social Media
Recuero, R. (2024) · Social Media + Society · doi:10.1177/20563051231224264 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
- Authors
- Burnett, A., Knighton, D., & Wilson, C.
- Affiliations
- Brigham Young University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Burnett, Alycia
- Venue
- Social Media + Society
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2022-07
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 3
- ISSN
- 2056-3051 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4295358233
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 3
- FWCI
- 7.63
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Social Media + Society (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Social Media and Politics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Media Influence and Politics
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Keywords
- spiral of silence, self-censorship, political identity, political ideology, fear of isolation, social media use, identity politics, conservatives, liberals, majority opinion
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