Communicating COVID-19 on Social Media : The Effects of the Spiral of Silence

In this paper, the Spiral of Silence theory (SOS) in the study of mass communications is applied to examine the trends and mechanisms of public opinion in Social Media (SM), using the popular topic of the COVID-19 pandemic. The study includes a secondary analysis of the data on pandemic information consumption obtained through four mass surveys conducted in Armenia. In the period from July 1 to August 30, 2020, we also surveyed Armenian Facebook users by means of Google forms during the highest outbreak of the pandemic in Armenia. In particular, the study demonstrates that although the majority of people are well informed about both public conduct requirements and the sanctions for misconduct during the pandemic, they do not follow the rules but hide their real opinion, preferring to openly agree with the official position while silently breaking the rules (that is, they keep their silence). We have found a correlation between the opinion environment of “friends” and other Facebook users, and a willingness to express their own opinion. Due to the predominance of the self-presentation mode as a communication strategy on Facebook, there is a trend among Armenian users not to risk their reputation, and avoid possible critics by keeping silence, if the discussion goes against their opinion. The findings of the study might be helpful both for the further development of communication theories and its application to the conditions of new pandemic reality, and for a better understanding of communicative behavior mechanisms in SM.Peer reviewe

Monitoring and Expressing Opinions on Social Networking Sites – Empirical Investigations based on the Spiral of Silence Theory

Social networking technologies such as Facebook are increasingly used for the exchange of information and opinions on politically and civically relevant issues. Drawing on the spiral of silence theory, this dissertation investigated the psychological mechanisms leading to the formation of opinion climates on social networking platforms. Specifically, this work focused on (a) whether and how users monitor other people’s opinions through these technologies and (b) under which circumstances they are willing to contribute to these opinion climates by voicing their personal viewpoint on these platforms. These two processes were addressed by five empirical studies. Study 1 examined the effects of different opinion cues (available on Facebook) on people’s inferences about public opinion. Results of a two-session experiment showed that individuals’ fear of isolation sharpened their attention toward user-generated comments, which, in turn, affected recipients’ public opinion perceptions. The latter influenced subjects’ opinions and their willingness to participate in social media discussions. Study 2 explored the situational manifestations of people’s fear of isolation and environmental variables as influence factors of people’s outspokenness. Results from qualitative interviews revealed a variety of sanctions people expect from others when voicing a minority opinion and a series of factors such as the size or the relationship to the audience which could exert an impact on one’s willingness to express their opinion. Study 3 further investigated the expectations of sanctions and their explanatory value regarding people’s communication behavior in different situations. Findings from an experiment demonstrated that the expectation of being personally attacked can explain why people are more inclined to express a minority opinion in offline rather than in online communication settings. Study 4 tested whether the publicness of social networking platforms in terms of the size and relational diversity of the audience affect people’s outspokenness. Results from a cross-cultural experiment showed that in Germany, a higher level of publicness of a controversial discussion on Facebook reduced people’s likelihood to express their viewpoint. This pattern, however, was not found in Singapore. Study 5 analyzed whether the relationship to the audience determines people’s likelihood to express their opinion on Facebook. Findings from an experiment revealed no effects of relational closeness to the audience on outspokenness. Instead, people’s certainty about the prevailing opinion climate among the audience increased their willingness to voice their opinion on Facebook. This collection of studies extends the previous state of knowledge by testing the validity of the spiral of silence theory but also pointing to potential boundaries thereof in the context of increasingly popular communication environments.Soziale Netzwerktechnologien wie Facebook werden immer mehr zum Informations- und Meinungsaustausch hinsichtlich politisch und gesellschaftlich relevanter Themen genutzt. Vor diesem Hintergrund untersucht die vorliegende Dissertation auf Basis der Theorie der Schweigespirale die psychologischen Mechanismen, die zur Bildung von Meinungsklimata auf sozialen Netzwerkplattformen führen. Dabei betrachtet diese Arbeit, (a) ob und wie Nutzer/innen anhand dieser Technologien die Meinungen anderer Menschen wahrnehmen und (b) unter welchen Umständen sie bereit sind, zu diesem Meinungsklima beizutragen und ihre Meinung auf diesen Plattformen zu äußern. Diese zwei Prozesse wurden mit Hilfe von fünf empirischen Studien analysiert. Studie 1 untersuchte die Wirkungen von verschiedenen Meinungs-Hinweisreizen (auf Facebook) auf die individuelle Wahrnehmung der öffentlichen Meinung. Ein zweiwelliges Experiment zeigte, dass die dispositionelle Isolationsfurcht die Aufmerksamkeit auf nutzergenerierte Kommentare erhöhte, welche wiederum die Wahrnehmungen des öffentlichen Meinungsklimas beeinflussten. Diese wirkten sich auf die persönliche Meinung der Rezipient/inn/en sowie deren Bereitschaft, sich an dieser thematischen Diskussion auf Facebook zu beteiligen, aus. Studie 2 fokussierte die situativen Erscheinungsformen der Isolationsfurcht und Umgebungsvariablen als Einflussfaktoren der Redebereitschaft. Anhand der Ergebnisse einer qualitativen Interview-Studie ließen sich diverse Sanktionen identifizieren, die Menschen von ihrer Umgebung erwarten, wenn sie eine Minderheitsmeinung kundtun würden, sowie eine Reihe von Faktoren, etwa die Größe oder die Beziehung zum Publikum, die Einfluss auf die Bereitschaft zur Meinungsäußerung nehmen könnten. Studie 3 analysierte weiterhin die Erklärungskraft der erwarteten Sanktionen auf das Kommunikationsverhalten in unterschiedlichen Situationen. Ein Experiment zeigte, dass die Erwartung, von anderen persönlich attackiert zu werden, einen Grund darstellt, warum Menschen eher dazu bereit sind, eine Minderheitsmeinung in der Offline- als in der Online-Kommunikation zu äußern. Studie 4 testete, ob die Öffentlichkeit auf sozialen Netzwerkseiten im Sinne der Größe und Diversität des Publikums die Redebereitschaft von den Nutzer/inne/n beeinflusst. Die Ergebnisse eines kulturvergleichenden Experiments legten offen, dass der höhere Öffentlichkeitsgrad einer kontroversen Diskussion auf Facebook – in Deutschland – die Wahrscheinlichkeit senkt, dass Menschen bei dieser Diskussion ihren Standpunkt zum Thema äußern. Dieses Muster konnte in Singapur nicht festgestellt werden. Studie 5 untersuchte, ob die Beziehung zum Publikum die Redebereitschaft zu einem kontroversen Thema beeinflussen kann. Ein Experiment fand jedoch keinen Effekt der Beziehungsnähe zum Publikum auf die Bereitwilligkeit von Nutzer/innen, ihre Meinung zum Thema auf Facebook kundzutun. Stattdessen erwies sich die verspürte Sicherheit über das wahrgenommene Meinungsklima unter dem entsprechenden Publikum als entscheidend: Je höher diese war, desto eher waren Menschen bereit, ihre Meinung auf Facebook kundzutun. Diese Studienreihe erweitert den aktuellen Forschungsstand, indem sie die Gültigkeit der Theorie der Schweigespirale, aber auch deren Grenzen in zunehmend beliebten Kommunikationsumgebungen aufzeigt

Revisiting the spiral of silence in a social media environment: Egypt’s 2014 presidential election as a case study

With the advent of the Internet and anonymous features of online media, users have established novel platforms to voice their opinion freely without fear of negative feedback. This thesis explores the application of a long-standing public opinion theory– the spiral of silence by Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann–within the prevalent Social Networking Sites (SNS), particularly Facebook. When applying spiral of silence to online mediated environment, it seems intuitive that the lack of verbal cues and anonymity offered would serve to undermine the fear of isolation and restlessness that results in unwillingness to express minority views. This research contributes to understanding how the spiral of silence might operate in the social media era, and adds a view on how SNS influence opinion-forming variables. This study uses survey and in-depth interviews to assess willingness to speak out on political stands during the Egyptian presidential election of 2014. A survey was distributed to query Egyptian SNS users about their willingness to express their political opinion prior to casting votes in the nation’s 2014 presidential election. In-depth interviews were also conducted offering interpretations to the perception of the general opinion climate, and expected consequences of expressing views about controversial issues to Facebook\u27s friends. This study considered online negative feedback on the users\u27 profile as the form of fear of isolation, to accommodate new form of isolation in social media environment. Tests of negative evaluation fears showed no relation between sample\u27s apprehension of a negative feedback on facebook and their tendency to express their political opinion on the presidential election, questioning spiral of silence\u27s explanation of compelling social factors. Respondents with higher knowledge level showed higher tendency to express their views on the issue of the election than those with lower knowledge level regardless of their social belonging status. The perceived majority\u27s opinion showed no influence on users\u27 inclination to express views, nor did it influence willingness to enter a discussion with holders of opposing views. Willingness to speak out under a minority label was not affected in an online environment. Moreover, no statistical significance was found to indicate that spiral of silence existence is still embedded in a real-life setting. Contrary to literature on the spiral of silence, findings revealed equal attention paid to elements of close circle and community at large, and perceived importance of identifying their opinion on the presidential election prior to evaluating personal opinion. The author can be contacted at [email protected]

The Spreading of Hostility: Unraveling of Social Norms in Communication

This work investigates the relationship between social norms, the shared rules that provide the standard of behavior, and online hate speech. We test our hypotheses empirically with three different online field experiments. Each chapter thus addresses a particular perspective of the relation between social norms and hate speech. In the first study, we compare informal verbal sanctions and censoring hateful content as interventions to tackle online hate. The interventions are based on two conceptualizations of social norms commonly found in the literature: i) the observed pattern of behavior or descriptive norm, and ii) informal social sanctions or the injunctive norm. The results suggest that adherence to the social norm in online conversations might be motivated by the observed pattern of behavior. In the second study, we test the assumption that observing an increasing number of norm violations in the local context will result in a decreased willingness to follow the norm, which will eventually result in the breakdown of the norm. In the last study, we explain the rise in online hate speech after terrorist attacks by the terrorist attacks creating a situation of normative uncertainty in which the previous consensus on the social norm against the public expression of hate erodes. Taken as a whole, the chapters represent an up-to-date general picture of the determinants of how social norms affect hate speech. All the conclusions come from original empirical work. Our data show that highlighting the anti-hate norm results in reduced levels of online hate speech. We also show that the presentation of the norm matters and the observed pattern of behavior is often a powerful normative cue. The descriptive norm seems of key importance for the regulation and they might help to design effective social norm interventions against online hate speech. Different individual characteristics, such as gender, might also affect the way people respond to normative cues. Finally, not only the behavior of others produce normative changes, but events that affect the normative certainty can also impact the anti-hate norm. Particularly events that increase normative uncertainty can amplify influence processes because people resolve the uncertainty by looking at existing patterns of behavior in the context

Exploring narratives about 'cancel culture' in UK educational/employment settings under the ECHR

Some advocates of free speech are currently arguing that universities and other organisations are far too prompt to accept curbs on expression or expressive acts in relation to issues such as transgender rights, racism, feminism, religious extremism. Such curbs tend to be aimed at offence-avoidance; as a result such advocates argue that debate on these and cognate issues is in some instances being silenced. But other commentators oppose that view, arguing that merely allowing the airing of all sorts of views offensive to some facilitates intolerance and opposes equal dignity. Against the background of such ongoing debates on the concept of so-called ‘cancel culture’, affecting some institutions, especially universities, this piece will interrogate various restrictions on expression that some view as linked to that concept. This article will then place such restrictions within the ECHR framework by considering the balance to be struck between freedom of expression as protected under Article 10 ECHR on the one hand, and the interest of minority and/or marginalised groups not to be confronted with opinions or view-point-based behaviour that may denigrate them on the other. The article seeks to come to some conclusions as to ways to achieve that balance, taking account of the standards set by relevant ECHR jurisprudence. It will ask fundamentally whether or how far the concept of curbing lawful but arguably harmful expression is compatible with those standards

Political disinformation and freedom of expression: Demystifying the net conundrum

Political disinformation, understood broadly as disinformation relating to matters of public interest, has been a major talking point at least since 2016. Policymakers and academics alike have been arguing and haggling about how to regulate this phenomenon in the fast-evolving online communication environment whilst upholding freedom of expression, a highly-prized freedom that is generally seen as an essential feature of democracy. More often than not, emerging regulatory measures have been greeted with severe criticism. But can the state nonetheless regulate the phenomenon of political disinformation without undermining freedom of expression? If so, how? In confronting these policy questions, this monograph begins by conceptualising freedom in general and freedom of expression in particular. This in turn helps establish whether at all the law protects as part of freedom of expression the act of communicating political disinformation. The monograph explores these questions in the light of relevant analytical and normative insights garnered from the field of political philosophy and uses as the main case study the human rights system of the Council of Europe. Its main thesis is that the state can, and has a duty to, regulate the phenomenon of political disinformation in a holistic manner and without necessarily taking away from freedom of expression, in particular by providing for a suitable combination of correction and sanction mechanisms. Given its philosophical underpinnings and holistic approach to the problem under consideration, the monograph promises to be useful to all jurisdictions that embrace democracy.--- Poliittinen disinformaatio, ymmärrettynä laajasti disinformaationa yleistä etua koskevissa asioissa, on ollut merkittävä teema useiden vuosien ajan, ainakin vuodesta 2016 lähtien. Päättäjät ja tutkijat ovat kiistelleet siitä, miten tätä ilmiötä voitaisiin säännellä nopeasti kehittyvässä verkkoviestintäympäristössä. Erityisen haasteellista tämä on, koska samanaikaisesti on huolehdittava siitä, että ei heikennetä sananvapautta, joka on demokraattisessa yhteiskunnassa keskeinen oikeus. Useimmiten uudet sääntelytoimenpiteet ja ehdotukset niistä ovatkin kohdanneet ankaraa arvostelua. Ajankohtaisena sekä oikeudellisesti ja myös yhteiskunnallisesti tärkeänä kysymyksenä kuitenkin säilyy, voitaisiinko poliittisen disinformaation ilmiötä säännellä sananvapautta heikentämättä ja, jos niin voitaisiin tehdä, miten tämä sääntely tulisi toteuttaa demokraattisessa oikeusvaltiossa. Tutkimuksessa syvennytään vapauden käsitteeseen yleisesti ja sananvapauteen erityisesti. Tämä on tarpeen sen tutkimiseksi, suojellaanko poliittisen disinformaation levittämistä osana sananvapautta. Tutkimuksessa tarkastellaan näitä kysymyksiä erityisesti poliittiseen filosofiaan tukeutuen. Tutkimuksen oikeudellisena viitekehyksenä puolestaan on Euroopan neuvoston ihmisoikeusjärjestelmä. Tutkimuksen keskeinen tulos on, että demokraattisessa oikeusvaltiossa – Euroopan ihmisoikeusjärjestelmän vaatimusten perusteella - voidaan ja on itse asiassa myös velvollisuus säännellä poliittisen disinformaation ilmiötä. Ilmiön kokonaisvaltainen sääntely ei välttämättä heikennä sananvapautta. Samalla on kuitenkin huolehdittava siitä, että sääntelykokonaisuuteen sisältyy myös sopiva yhdistelmä korjaus- ja seuraamusmekanismeja

An Empirical Test of the Effects of Political Correctness: Implications for Censorship, Self-Censorship, and Public Deliberation

For over 30 years, scholars, journalists, and politicians have debated the costs and benefits of Political Correctness (PC). Those who support PC claim that it benefits historically disadvantaged groups by protecting them from discrimination and encourages diverse representation. Opponents to PC claim that it inhibits freedom of expression and thus public deliberation. However, despite three decade of debate, PC is under theorized and has received little empirical investigation. In this dissertation, following theorizing by Robinson and Reid (2016a), and research on social identity, self-categorization, and public deliberation, I propose that PC is rooted in identity politics (on the right and left), and should be viewed as a tool to control discourse in intergroup conflict. This dissertation argues that PC is an ideology that (among other things) relies on adherents’ perceptions of protected and perpetrator groups, involves the imposition of social sanctions and censorship, and justifies such actions by appealing to the moral failings of actors whose actions are judged anti-PC (e.g., sexist or racist). Further, individuals who believe that their views and actions may be perceived as anti-PC may be more likely to self-censor to avoid sanctions and being judged as immoral. This may ultimately affect public deliberation due to a decreased tolerance of diverse viewpoints. The relationships between PC, perceptions of victimhood, support for censorship, self-censorship, and public deliberation were tested across three studies. The survey findings from Study 1 indicate that participants’ perceptions of victimhood were predicted by their political ideology, such that the more liberal participants were the more likely they were to perceive victimization among racial, sexual, and religious minorities, and the more conservative participants were, the more likely they were to perceive victimization among Whites, Christians, and males. The same effects of political ideology were observed for support for censorship of political opponents. Study 2 primed participants using either PC code words or a control that did not include code words, and found that the more conservative participants were, the more likely they were to report self-censoring, but only after exposure to a PC prime. Study 3 had participants engage in an online conversation with a confederate under either a PC or non-PC prime. Participants exposed to the PC prime argued with lower levels of integrative complexity (a measure of the extent to which people recognize alternative view points) than those in a non-PC condition, and the more liberal participants were, the less of integrative complexity they exhibited. Taken together, these studies confirm that PC involves competition between liberals and conservatives, that PC norms produce self-censorship among moderates and relatively conservative students, and produce less cognitively complex reasoning about political subjects, particularly among liberals

Love on the line: The social dynamics involved with people meeting other people using New Zealand online dating sites

The intention of this thesis is to explore whether New Zealand trends in online dating parallel those identified by overseas studies, or whether patterns are emerging that are unique to New Zealand society. The Internet Windows Messenger instant messenger service (MSN) was used to interview 32 subjects about their experiences with online dating, covering areas such as motivation for using online dating; types of relationships sought; barriers to online dating; online rapport and offline chemistry; online infidelity; and managing 'difference'. Drawing on these responses, this thesis presents findings pertaining to a diverse group of New Zealanders' attitudes towards and uses of online dating. Some of the key findings show that online rapport does not guarantee offline chemistry; that there are gender differences in attitudes towards appearance, age, and receiving sexually explicit material online; and that sexual experimentation and infidelity are being facilitated through online dating. The issue of 'difference' as it relates to online dating has been largely neglected by overseas researchers, and for this reason was extensively included in this research. Key findings relating to 'difference' show that there is a clear split between those interviewees whose 'difference' impacted positively on their online dating experience (those with sexual 'difference' falling into this category), and those whose 'difference' impacted negatively (those with physical or mental 'difference'). In addition, those interviewees with a sexual 'difference' have been able to connect with other like-minded people through online dating, contributing to the 'normalization' of previously considered deviant behaviours. Based on the research presented in this thesis, it appears that New Zealand online dating activities are consistent with overseas trends, although there are indications that some behaviour may be more specific to New Zealand society, such as gender differences in relation to bisexuality, and covert same-sex encounters involving men who are either married or who state in their profiles that they are 'straight' or heterosexual