Talk:Spiral of silence

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 8 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zw321. Peer reviewers: Chinchin66, LJoanne.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Try not doing this too often. Its an encyclopedia, not an assignment Duckmonster (talk) 02:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Quality of explanation
this is quite a bad explation of this theoy. it's simple to the point of explaining the theory incorrectly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.106.28 (talk) 10:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Miller (2005) reference
Where is the reference Miller (2005)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.204.221.160 (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Influence of Psychology
Psychology, in particular, communications theory, is heavily utilised in this webpage, but it appears this theory was political in origin. For example, it is simply wrong that the 'spiral of silence' is a "natural" part of evolution, this makes no sense in evolutionary psychology or political theory. I suggest that the pages be split into the Political page concerning the original idea, and the views of communications psychologists (an educated elite themselves), who wish to paint this phenomenon, as not only normal (which it explicitly is NOT), but as a product of evolution?????? This is class-propaganda --Apmab1 (talk) 03:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

It's correct that Noelle-Neumann and her team were initially studying German elections when the idea of the SoS crystalised: stated voting intentions, exit poll interviews and actual results. However, I don't think the data being political makes it an exclusively political science theory - the behaviour exposed is very much rooted in social psychology and as such the article is right not to separate the two. The links between fear, taboo and self-censorship are well established and these are intrinsically linked to this idea of an evolutionary spiral of silence. Separating the political [source data] from the evolutionary psychology [rationale] would be to split a single cohesive idea in two. (Ukbrookes (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2011 (UTC))

Spiral of Absurdity
Why this "theory" has a place in an encyclopedia is  beyond me. There seems to be no science whatever to back it up. The references seem themselves to be nothing more than opinion pieces (usually from the left side of the plate) rather than hard science.75.164.150.119 (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Nonsense. The majority of the citations are from academic journals, and the theory is considered a foundational cornerstone of media sociology . And for reference, although it is irrelevant, Noelle-Neumann was a right winger. Your anonymous complaint is baseless. Duckmonster (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Balance of attention paid to subject vs subject as relates to Internet
The article spends quite a lot of time on the Internet as it relates to the subject. It'd be great if the subject itself generally could be fleshed out more; if it could be more plainly stated why the Internet is of primary significance in understanding the subject; or, presumably least desirable, the Internet section curtailed. —Christian Campbell 06:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Changes by 200.219.132.105 ‎
The edits made by are unacceptable. There was no discussion about changing the reference format and the addition of multiple instances of "page needed" are unnecessary when a single tag at the top of the article suffices. Viriditas (talk) 03:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. In addition, page numbers were already present in quite a few of the edits, but were removed and replaced with "page needed" requests. Ongepotchket (talk) 01:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi Handan: Based on the subject-matter and previous Wiki interpretation, I believe your general approach regarding the Spiral of Silence page is spot-on. Proof of this lies in a simple comparison between your proposed configuration and the previous iteration, which was often hard-to-follow and confusing (particularly for the uninitiated). Based on the changes I saw this morning, there's now a logical flow to the theory which feels both crisp and concise to the reader.

One important variable I'm hoping you're still considering is the use of a graph and/or visual. After reading everything through, it was easy to envision how a Spiral of Silence graphic might offer an added layer of aesthetic/interpretive detail (I also noticed the reference regarding the same in the "Spiral Model" section). Along with crystallizing your vision, I believe a visual representation can be helpful in balancing the amount of prose required to sufficiently outline the theory.

Lf480 (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)LeslieLf480 (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Henan- I think you do a good job of expanding on the introduction and going through all the "Spiral of Silence" terms and capitalizing them. However, I am concerned that you have removed a rather integral portion of Heterogeneity and anonymity and moved it to criticisms. While I completely understand the logical progression behind moving the criticism of the research to the criticism tab, this particular criticism is specifically talking about the research designs that is particularly discussed in this alternative survey methodology approaches heterogeneity portion.

Also, under your line 1 changes (background portion), I saw that one of the quotes that you added in was grammatically incorrect so I was wondering if that was just a misquote or a bad source. I've checked your source and it is one that we have all read so maybe there was a typo in your quote?

Overall, I think there could have been a few more changes to be made regarding structure. But good job! I enjoyed reading your article. -Lois

Lg696 (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Henan!

Overall, great job. This article is easy to read and enjoyable, and it provides a good overview of the theory for a non-academic audience. I especially enjoyed the examples of how the theory can be applied to real life situations and found those useful to illustrate how to use the theory.

One thing you may want to look at is the organization of the Criticisms section; while it states that there are 3 potential influences, there are then 6 bullet points, which is a little bit confusing. It might be a good idea remove the bullet points and instead rework this into paragraphs. I think it would also make more sense to incorporate Methodology under Criticisms, rather than making it into another section.

Another quick thing: The introduction to the "it was cheap" quote is a bit awkward; I would rephrase that sentence. But great job overall! Mb1809 (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Another reason why social media weaken the spiral of silence effect
Differences between communication in the traditional environment (newspapers, TV and radios) and in the Internet environment (online forums, blogs and social media platforms) have been studied profoundly. Hoeflich (1997, cited in Schulz & Roessler, 2012) suggested that one of the main distinctions which particularly contributes to the applicability of the Spiral of Silence Theory lies in the hybrid attribution of Internet-based media, where the boundary between interpersonal communication and online public communication is blurred. Schulz and Roessler (2012) pointed out that since the standard of being a journalist and broadcast information in the online environment is lowered, online users now have freedom to post contents and trigger communication. For this reason, the concept of what “public” opinion becomes confusing; people’s ability to activate their “quasi-statistical sense” is thereby weakened. This seems another reason why the Spiral of Silence Theory is less likely to explain the willingness of communication for individuals online.

There’re several improvements on the page contents which might be helpful for non-academic readers to better understand this theory. First of all, an illustration of the “Spiral” could be presented with notes on the illustration to explain why this process could be analogized as a spiral. This would be much more straightforward than text-based explanations for ordinary readers to understand the dynamics of this theory. In addition, contents of the section “Media and public opinion” could be expanded. While the function of media to shape public opinion and people’s perception of public opinion has been interpreted, more explanation of the way in which media REFLECT public opinion could be presented. In other words, factors influencing media’s selection of “the mainstream opinion” could be discussed to make this section more full-blooded.

Tianf3 (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)Fang Tian

The Emperor's New Clothes?
Hi! This is my first talk page edit so I'm not really sure how things are done around here, but I just wanted to mention that (from reading the cliff notes of the article page) that the short story The Emperor's New Clothes might be relevant to the subject. Hope you all have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.32.42.88 (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review
Hi there! This is a fascinating theory which can also apply to nowadays social phenomenon. The introduction part is so concise that it's really easy to understand this theory in such a short description. The whole sturcture is also compact and well-arranged. Visually, the page is very comfortable to read, and it's logically smooth in a newer's view. After learning this theory, I feel the page gave me a basic but sufficinet explanation about what is spiral of silence. In my opinion, I think the background part could add the limitation of this theory. Also, adding some graphic illustrations would enhance the content, especially help those who's totally new to this theory better understand it. I indeed learned a lot through this page about this interesting theory. Thanks to all the efforts that make it polished.Chinchin66 (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

— Hi! I think the structure of this page can be adjusted to a better state. For example, the 4th heading is “vocal minority and hardcore”, but I think this is not parallel to other headings like background or assumption, so it’s a little abrupt when I see this heading. The 6th heading “Internet” has the same problem as the above. Under the “Internet” there’s no explanation for this point and it seems like this part is talking about a different thing other than this theory. So I suggest that you could ponder how the headings can serve better for people to understand this theory. Another thing I notice in the application part is that the content gets straight into some application examples, like in “perceptions in the classroom”, it goes straight into a study. I think it would be better if you can summarize the application fields first, like providing subtitles of political study, culture study, and communication study, briefly summarize what findings do these fields have, and then go into the specific case study. I provided two relatively new articles to consider: Matthes, J., Knoll, J., & von Sikorski, C. (2018). The “spiral of silence” revisited: A meta-analysis on the relationship between perceptions of opinion support and political opinion expression. Communication Research, 45(1), 3-33. Stoycheff, E. (2016). Under surveillance: Examining Facebook’s spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA internet monitoring. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(2), 296-311. LJoanne (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

"Isolating the factors that remove isolation"
This is a cute subsection title but I think it sacrifices clarity for cleverness. nhinchey (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

"cross-cultural" is a compound modifier and always hyphenated
I have deleted absurd link pipes and corrected article title mispunctuation to the contrary. Please see MOS:HYPHEN regarding compound modifiers. Also, it is never, ever okay to mispunctuate an article title. Thanks for never doing this again. -  Julietdeltalima   (talk)  20:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The Spiral of Silence and opinion control
In recent reports on the actions of Just Stop Oil, instead of reporting the facts, the likes of the Daily Mail have pushed some hateful attitudes towards protesters. Then again, does not such 'reporting' help to limit public reaction against the Government's anti-protesting laws?

So is there any room within this article to mention the means by which the Spiral of Silence is used by the Government as a tactic of opinion control? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.177 (talk) 11:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Mass Media and Society
— Assignment last updated by Aivenrd (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Possible redundancy in the Spiral Model section.
I've read through the Spiral Model section a few times now, I even made a few edits which can be seen in the page history, but it is still bugging me that this, albeit short, section seems to repeat itself over and over. Does anyone else feel this way or am I maybe missing some nuances within each sentence? Wikistudent100 (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

'Spiral of Silence' or 'spiral of silence'
It appears that halfway through the article the phrase 'spiral of silence' becomes capitalized for a few paragraphs, despite being lowercase throughout the rest of the article. Unless anyone has grammatical evidence for why it should be one way or another, myself and the other students in my class assigned to edit this page will make our own educated decision between the two versions. Wikistudent100 (talk) 17:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Communication Theory
— Assignment last updated by Kwv2014 (talk) 20:14, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I've reverted an article move and some recent additions by @Lal2298 and @Victoria.reeves1997, and I'm posting here to explain why:
 * Regarding the title, I think that the current title is more natural, precise and concise. If you think that the article should be renamed, first please check the Wikipedia policy, then open a requested move here.
 * Regarding the content: The article needs to start with a "lede" or lead, which is a concise (few paragraph) summary of the article. The extra content that you added read like an essay, and was not appropriate for the first thing that a reader sees.  Perhaps it would be appropriate to work it instead into a new section of the article, or more likely to merge it into the "The rising influence of the internet and social media" section.
 * The references need to be added using the existing reference style in the article: see here for more help and pointers.
 * Finally, I hope this is not too dispiriting – thank-you for your work, which I am sure can be incorporated within the article one way or another.
 * Best wishes, Wham2001 (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2023 (UTC)