One reason why people avoid using social media to express their opinions is to avert social sanctions as proposed by the spiral of silence theory. We here elaborate on individual-level sensitivity to social rejection in relation to voicing political opinions on social media sites. Given the uncertainty about sharing political views in social media, and the fact that social acceptance, or rejection, can be easily communicated through, for instance, likes, or a lack of likes, we argue that rejection sensitive individuals are less likely to share political information in social media. Combining an analysis of unique survey data on psychological characteristics and online political activity with focus group interviews with Swedish youth supports our argument, showing that rejection sensitive individuals are less inclined to engage politically in social media. The results extend on previous research by establishing the role of rejection sensitivity in political engagement in social media.
AnduizaECantijochMGallegoA (2009) Political participation and the internet: a field essay. Information, Communication & Society12(6): 860–878.
2.
BäckEABäckHAltermarkNet al. (2018) The quest for significance: attitude adaption to a radical group following social exclusion. International Journal of Developmental Science12(1-2): 25–36.
3.
BäckEABäckHGarcia-AlbaceteG (2013) Protest activity, social incentives, and rejection sensitivity: results from a survey experiment about tuition fees. Contention: The Multidisciplinary Journal of Social Protest1: 1–15.
4.
BäckEABäckHKnaptonH (2015) Group belongingness and collective action: effects of need to belong and rejection sensitivity on willingness to participate in protest activities. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology56(5): 537–544.
5.
BaumeisterRFLearyMR (1995) The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin117: 497–529.
6.
BaymNK (2015) Personal Connections in the Digital Age. Malden, MA: Polity Press.
7.
BeamMAChildJTHutchensMJet al. (2018) Context collapse and privacy management: diversity in Facebook friends increases online news reading and sharing. New Media & Society20: 2296–2314.
8.
BechmannALomborgS (2013) Mapping actor roles in social media: different perspectives on value creation in theories of user participation. New Media & Society15(5): 765–781.
9.
BerensonKRGyurakAAyduk DowneyÖGet al. (2009) rejection sensitivity and disruption of attention by social threat cues. Journal of Research in Personality43(6): 1064–1072.
10.
BimberB (2017) Three prompts for collective action in the context of digital media. Political Communication34(1): 6–20.
11.
BodeL (2017) Gateway political behaviors: the frequency and consequences of low-cost political engagement on social media. Social Media + Society3: 1–10.
12.
BollenKANobleMD (2011) Structural equation models and the quantification of behavior. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America108(Suppl 3): 15639–15646.
13.
BoulianneS (2015) Social media use and participation: a meta-analysis of current research. Information, Communication & Society18(5): 524–538.
14.
boydDM (2008) Taken out of context: American teen sociality in networked publics. PhD Thesis, University of California, Berkeley, CA.
15.
boydDMEllisonNB (2007) Social network sites: definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication13: 210–230.
16.
CovielloLSouhnYKramerADIet al. (2014.) Detecting emotional contagion in massive social networks. PLoS ONE9(3): e90315.
17.
CyrJ (2017) The unique utility of focus groups for mixed-methods research. PS: Political Science & Politics50(4): 1038–1042.
18.
DavidssonPFindahlO (2016) Svenskarna och Internet 2016 [The Swedes and the Internet 2016]. Report from World Internet Project. Available at: https://www.iis.se/docs/Svenskarna_och_internet_2016.pdf (accessed 10 August 2018).
19.
DowneyGFeldmanSI (1996) Implications of rejection sensitivity for intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology70(6): 1327–1343.
20.
Dvir-GvirsmanSGarrettRKTsfatiY (2018) Why do partisan audiences participate? Perceived public opinion as the mediating mechanism. Communication Research45(1): 112–136.
21.
EkströmM (2016) Young people’s everyday political talk: a social achievement of democratic engagement. Journal of Youth Studies19(1): 1–19.
22.
EliasophN (1998) Avoiding Politics: How Americans Produce Apathy in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
FoxJHoltLF (2018) Fear of isolation and perceived affordances: the spiral of silence on social networking sites regarding police discrimination. Mass Communication and Society21(5): 533–554.
24.
FoxJMcEwanB (2017) Distinguishing technologies for social interaction: the perceived social affordances of communication channels scale. Communication Monographs84: 298–318.
25.
FreedmanD (1999) From association to causation: some remarks on the history of statistics. Statistical Science14(3): 243–258.
26.
Garcia-AlbaceteGM (2011) Continuity or generational change? A longitudinal study of young people’s political participation in Western Europe. Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Mannheim, Mannheim.
27.
GearhartSZhangW (2015) “Was it something I said?” “No, it was something you posted!” A study of the spiral of silence theory in social media contexts. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking18: 208–213.
28.
GlaserBGStraussAL (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
29.
GustafssonN (2013) Leetocracy. Political Participation, Social Network Sites and Inequality. Lund: Department of Political Science, Lund University.
30.
HalpernDGibbsJ (2013) Social media as a catalyst for online deliberation? Exploring the affordances of Facebook and YouTube for political expression. Computers in Human Behavior29: 1159–1168.
31.
HamptonKNRainieLLuWet al. (2014) Social Media and the “Spiral of Silence.”Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.
32.
HartgerinkCHJvan BeestIWichertsJMet al. (2015) The ordinal effects of ostracism: a meta-analysis of 120 Cyberball studies. PLoS ONE10(5): e0127002.
33.
HayesAFMatthesJ (2014) Self-censorship, the spiral of silence and contemporary political communication. In: JamiesonKHKenskiK (eds) Oxford Handbook on Political Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 763–776.
34.
HayesAFMatthesJEvelandWPJr (2013) Stimulating the quasi-statistical organ: fear of social isolation motivates the quest for knowledge of the opinion climate. Communication Research40: 439–462.
35.
KeatingAMelisG (2017) Social media and youth political engagement: preaching to the converted or providing a new voice for youth?The British Journal of Politics and International Relations19(4): 877–894.
36.
KingGTomzMWittenbergJ (2000) Making the most of statistical analyses: improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science44: 341–355.
37.
KnaptonHBäckHBäckE (2015) The social activist: conformity to the ingroup following rejection as a predictor of political participation. Social Influence10(2): 97–108.
38.
KoudenburgNGordijnEHPostmesT (2014) “More than words”: social validation in close relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin40(11): 1517–1528.
39.
LearyMRKellyKMCottrellCAet al. (2007) Individual differences in the need to belong: mapping the nomological network. Unpublished.
40.
LinWKPfauM (2007) Can inoculation work against the spiral of silence? A study of public opinion on the future of Taiwan. International Journal of Public Opinion Research19: 155–172.
41.
LingR (2010.) Texting as a life phase medium. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication15(2): 277–292.
42.
LöckenhoffCECookMAAndersonJFet al. (2013) Age differences in responses to progressive social exclusion: the role of cognition and socioemotional functioning. The Journals of Gerontology, Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences68: 13–22.
43.
McDevittMKiousisSWahl-JorgensenK (2003) Spiral of moderation: opinion expression in computer-mediated discussion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research15: 454–470.
44.
MarstonEGHareAAllenJP (2010) Rejection sensitivity in late adolescence: social and emotional sequelae. Journal of Research on Adolescence20(4): 959–982.
45.
MascheroniGMurruMF (2017) “I can share politics but I don’t discuss it”: everyday practices of political talk on Facebook. Social Media + Society3: 1–11.
46.
MatthesJMorrisonKRSchemerC (2010) A spiral of silence for some: attitude certainty and the expression of political minority opinions. Communication Research37: 774–800.
47.
MetzgerMJ (2009) The study of media effects in the era of internet communication. In: NabiRLOliverMB (eds) The SAGE Handbook of Media Processes and Effects. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE, pp. 561–576.
48.
MorYKligler-VilenchikNMaozI (2015) Political expression on Facebook in a context of conflict: dilemmas and coping strategies of Jewish-Israeli youth. Social Media + Society1: 1–10.
49.
NeubaumGKrämerNC (2018) What do we fear? Expected sanctions for expressing minority opinions in offline and online communication. Communication Research45: 139–164.
50.
NeuwirthKFrederickEMayoC (2007) The spiral of silence and fear of isolation. Journal of Communication57: 450–468.
51.
Noelle-NeumannE (1974) The spiral of silence a theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication24: 43–51.
52.
Noelle-NeumannE (1977) Turbulences in the climate of opinion: methodological applications of the Spiral of Silence theory. Public Opinion Quarterly41: 143–158.
53.
Noelle-NeumannE (1993) The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion, Our Social Skin. 2nd ed.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
54.
Noelle-NeumannEPetersenT (2004) The spiral of silence and the social nature of man. In: KaidLL (ed.) Handbook of Political Communication Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence-Erlbaum, pp. 339–356.
55.
OscarssonHHolmbergS (2016) Swedish Voters (Svenska Väljare). Stockholm: Wolters Kluwer.
56.
PapacharissiZ (2015) Affective Publics: Sentiment, Technology and Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
57.
RösslerPSchulzA (2014) Public opinion expression in online environments. In: DonsbachWSalmonCTTsfatiY (eds) The Spiral of Silence: New Perspectives on Communication and Public Opinion. New York: Routledge, pp. 101–118.
ShermanLPaytonAHernandezLet al. (2016) The power of the like in adolescence: effects of peer influence on neural and behavioral responses to social media. Psychological Science27(7): 1027–1035.
60.
StewartDWShamdasaniP (2014) Focus Groups: Theory and Practice. New York: SAGE.
61.
StewartKWilliamsM (2005) Researching online populations: the use of online focus groups for social research. Qualitative Research5(4): 395–416.
62.
StoycheffE (2016) Under surveillance: examining Facebook’s spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA internet monitoring. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly93: 296–311.
63.
TreemJLeonardiP (2013) Social media use in organizations: exploring the affordances of visibility, editability, persistence, and association. In: SalmonCT (ed.) Communication Yearbook. New York: Routledge, pp. 143–189.
64.
ValerianiAVaccariC (2016) Accidental exposure to politics on social media as online participation equalizer in Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. New Media & Society18(9): 1857–1874.
65.
VitakJ (2012) The impact of context collapse and privacy on social network site disclosures. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media56: 451–470.
66.
VragaEKThorsonKKligler-VilenchikNet al. (2015) How individual sensitivities to disagreement shape youth political expression on Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior45: 281–289.
67.
VromenAXenosMALoaderB (2015) Young people, social media and connective action: from organisational maintenance to everyday political talk. Journal of Youth Studies18(1): 80–100.
68.
WangMYHmielowskiJDHutchensMJet al. (2017) Extending the spiral of silence: partisan media, perceived support, and sharing opinions online. Journal of Information Technology & Politics14: 248–262.
69.
WeeksBEArdèvol-AbreuAGildeZúñigaH (2017) Online influence? Social media use, opinion leadership, and political persuasion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research29(2): 214–239.
70.
WilliamsKD (2007) Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology58: 425–452.
71.
WilliamsKDCheungCKTChoiW (2000) Cyberostracism: effects of being ignored over the internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology79: 748–762.
72.
WolfWLevordashkaARuffJRet al. (2015) Ostracism online: a social media ostracism paradigm. Behavior Research Methods47: 361–373.
73.
WuT-YAtkinDJ (2018) To comment or not to comment: examining the influences of anonymity and social support on one’s willingness to express in online news discussions. New Media & Society20(12): 4512–4532.
74.
YunGWParkSY (2011) Selective posting: willingness to post a message online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication16: 201–227.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
