Climate of silence: Pluralistic ignorance as a barrier to climate change discussion

The key assumption of spiral of silence theory is that opinion climate perceptions affect political opinion expression. We meta-analyzed the strength of this relationship and clarified the impact of theoretically relevant moderators. Sixty-six studies collectively including more than 27,000 participants were located. We observed a significant positive relationship (r = .10; Zr = .10) between opinion climate and opinion expression. This relationship was not weaker in online as compared with offline opinion expression environments. Also, the relationship did not vary by the number of the targets of opinion expression, the opinion of the targets, the opinion climate characteristics, and the design, measurement, and sample characteristics. The largest silencing effect (r = .34), however, was observed when participants talk to their family, friends, or neighbors about obtrusive issues. Overall, our findings suggest that the relationship between opinion climate perception and political opinion expression is str...

The “Spiral of Silence” Revisited: A Meta-Analysis on the Relationship Between Perceptions of Opinion Support and Political Opinion Expression:

The creative self: Effect of beliefs, self-efficacy, mindset, and identity.

We propose a broadened conceptualization of what it means to belong by reviewing evidence that there is more than one way to achieve a sense of belonging. We suggest four paths-a communal-relationship path, a general-approbation path, a group-membership path, and a minor-sociability path-and review some evidence for the existence of each. We call for researchers to recognize that multiple paths to belonging exist and to study whether and how the paths combine and interact to influence people's sense of belonging. Choosing the communal-relationship path and the general-approbation path as an example, we highlight times when these paths may (a) mesh well and produce additive boosts to a person's sense of belonging, (b) substitute for one another, and (c) conflict with one another and cause ambivalence. We further call for the development of refined measures of the need to belong and of having a sense of achieved belonging as well as new measures of striving to achieve belonging through specific paths. We suggest that broadening the conceptualization of belonging will help integrate existing literature and generate future research.

Multiple Paths to Belonging That We Should Study Together.

The present research intends to shed light on the processes enabling political minorities to transition into normatively acceptable groups, by investigating how a previously marginalised far-right movement (the French National Front) is progressively becoming mainstream. Drawing on the social representations approach, we argue that perceived social norms play a pivotal role in this process. Using a longitudinal and experimental design, the study (N = 233) was implemented in the ecological context of the 2012 French presidential election at a Parisian university campus, a traditional anti-far-right bastion. We tested whether the electoral campaign altered the perceptions of social norms, whether the perceived social norms were easily malleable in this specific context and, most important, whether they influenced people's willingness to speak out in public against the far-right movement. The findings support affirmative answers to all three questions. We conclude that, in periods of collective uncertainty, changing perceptions of social norms might play an important role in the weakening of public opposition to far-right movements. This, in turn, helps to explain the recent transition to mainstream recognition of a number of previously marginalised political movements in Europe and around the globe.

From marginal to mainstream: The role of perceived social norms in the rise of a far-right movement

Four experiments provided evidence for when and why opinion minorities take more time than opinion majorities to report their opinions. In Study 1, participants who wrote about feeling overly different from—but not overly similar to—others were slower to report their opinions after being led to believe that they held a minority than majority opinion. In Studies 2 and 3, minority opinion holders’ hesitancy was attenuated among participants with a high dispositional need for uniqueness, and this effect was mediated by low need for uniqueness individuals’ beliefs that their minority opinions were less normative than their majority opinions (Study 3). In Study 4, a subtle need to belong manipulation amplified the differences in response times between opinion minorities and majorities. Together, these studies show that minorities’ hesitancy in reporting their opinions depends on their motives to belong versus be unique and stems from normative influence processes.

Zhuoren Chen

Papers

Experimental Evidence for Minorities’ Hesitancy in Reporting Their Opinions: The Roles of Optimal Distinctiveness Needs and Normative Influence