The novel affordances and unique features on social media have transformed the way people assess public opinion. Drawing on the spiral of silence (SOS) theory, this study examines the roles that user-generated comments (UGCs) and aggregated user representations (AURs), represented by reaction emojis, play in shaping perceptions of the opinion climate. It also investigates how features on the platform trigger perceptions of source credibility to influence willingness to speak out. Results from a 3 (opinion cues: UGCs-only vs AURs-only vs UGCs and AURs) × 2 (opinion climate congruency: congruent vs incongruent) × 2 (source credibility: high vs low) between-subjects experimental design revealed that audiences perceived reaction emojis to reflect public opinion. Source credibility was found to affect willingness to speak out and moderate opinion climate congruency. The findings extend the SOS theory by highlighting the significant role that novel affordances have on SOS components operating online. Implications of the findings were discussed.
BaekHAhnJChoiY (2012) Helpfulness of online consumer reviews: readers’ objectives and review cues. International Journal of Electronic Commerce17(2): 99–126.
2.
BodorT (2012) The issue of timing and opinion congruity in spiral of silence research: Why does research suggest limited empirical support for the theory?. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 24(3): 269–286.
3.
BoehmerJTandocECJr (2015) Why we retweet: factors influencing intentions to share sport news on Twitter. International Journal of Sport Communication8(2): 212–232.
4.
ChevalierJAMayzlinD (2006) The effect of word of mouth on sales: online book reviews. Journal of Marketing Research43(3): 345–354.
5.
DerksDBosAEVon GrumbkowJ (2008) Emoticons in computer-mediated communication: social motives and social context. CyberPsychology and Behavior11(1): 99–101.
6.
DomingoDQuandtTHeinonenA, et al. (2008) Participatory journalism practices in the media and beyond: an international comparative study of initiatives in online newspapers. Journalism Practice2(3): 326–342.
7.
DresnerEHerringSC (2010) Functions of the nonverbal in CMC: emoticons and illocutionary force. Communication Theory20(3): 249–268.
GardnerDGCummingsLLDunhamRB, et al. (1998) Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales: an empirical comparison. Educational and Psychological Measurement58(6): 898–915.
10.
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(4): 208–213.
11.
GuthrieG (2010) Basic Research Methods: An Entry to Social Science Research. New Delhi, India: SAGE.
12.
HaSAhnJ (2011) Why are you sharing others’ tweets? The impact of argument quality and source credibility on information sharing behavior. Proceedings of the international conference on information systems, Shanghai, China, 4–7 December.
HayesAF (2007) Exploring the forms of self-censorship: on the spiral of silence and the use of opinion expression avoidance strategies. Journal of Communication57(4): 785–802.
15.
HayesAF (2013) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-based Approach. New York: Guilford Press.
16.
HoSSKristiansenS (2019) Environmental debates over nuclear energy: media, communication, and the public. Environmental Communication13(4): 431–439.
17.
HoSSMcLeodDM (2008) Social-psychological influences on opinion expression in face-to-face and computer-mediated communication. Communication Research35(2): 190–207.
18.
HoSSLeongADLooiJ, et al. (2019a) Online, offline, or word-of-mouth? Complementary media usage patterns and credibility perceptions of nuclear energy information in Southeast Asia. Energy Research and Social Science48: 46–56.
19.
HoSSLeongADLooiJ, et al. (2019b) Science literacy or value predisposition? A meta-analysis of factors predicting public perceptions of benefits, risks, and acceptance of nuclear energy. Environmental Communication13(4): 457–471.
20.
HoSSOshitaTLooiJ, et al. (2019c) Exploring public perceptions of benefits and risks, trusts and the acceptance of nuclear energy in Thailand and Vietnam: a qualitative approach. Energy Policy127: 259–268.
21.
HovlandCIJanisILKelleyHH (1953) Communication and Persuasion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
LangA (2000) The limited capacity model of mediated message processing. Journal of Communication50(1): 46–70.
24.
LeeEJJangYJ (2010) What do others’ reactions to news on Internet portal sites tell us? Effects of presentation format and readers’ need for cognition on reality perception. Communication Research37(6): 825–846.
25.
McDevittMKiousisSWahl-JorgensenK (2003) Spiral of moderation: opinion expression in computer-mediated discussion. International Journal of Public Opinion Research15(4): 454–470.
26.
MetzgerMJFlanaginAJMeddersRB (2010) Social and heuristic approaches to credibility evaluation online. Journal of Communication60(3): 413–439.
27.
NeubaumGKrämerNC (2017) Monitoring the opinion of the crowd: psychological mechanisms underlying public opinion perceptions on social media. Media Psychology20(3): 502–531.
28.
NickersonRS (1998) Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Review of General Psychology2(2): 175–220.
29.
Noelle-NeumannE (1974) The spiral of silence: a theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication24(2): 43–51.
30.
NovakPKSmailovićJSlubanB, et al. (2015) Sentiment of emojis. PLoS ONE10(12): e0144296.
31.
PangNHoSSZhangAM, et al. (2016) Can spiral of silence and civility predict click speech on Facebook?Computers in Human Behavior64: 898–905.
32.
PerrySDGonzenbachWJ (1997) Effects of news exemplification extended: considerations of controversiality and perceived future opinion. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media41(2): 229–244.
33.
SalmonCTNeuwirthK (1990) Perceptions of opinion “climates” and willingness to discuss the issue of abortion. Journalism Quarterly67(3): 567–577.
34.
ScheufeleDAShanahanJLeeE (2001) Real talk: manipulating the dependent variable in spiral of silence research. Communication Research28(3): 304–324.
35.
SchulzARoesslerP (2012) The spiral of silence and the Internet: selection of online content and the perception of the public opinion climate in computer-mediated communication environments. International Journal of Public Opinion Research24(3): 346–367.
SundarS (2008) The MAIN model: a heuristic approach to understanding technology effects on credibility. In: MetzgerMFlanaginA (eds) Digital Media, Youth, and Credibility. Cambridge: MIT Press, pp. 73–100.
41.
TsfatiY (2003) Media skepticism and climate of opinion perception. International Journal of Public Opinion Research15: 65–82.
42.
WalterSBrüggemannMEngesserS (2018) Echo chambers of denial: explaining user comments on climate change. Environmental Communication12(2): 204–217.
43.
WeissD (2009) Spiral of silence. In LittlejohnSWFossKA (eds) Encyclopedia of Communication Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 928–930.
44.
WirthWBöckingTKarnowskiV, et al. (2007) Heuristic and systematic use of search engines. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication12(3): 778–800.
45.
ZerbackTKochTKrämerB (2015) Thinking of others: effects of implicit and explicit media cues on climate of opinion perceptions. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly92(2): 421–443.
46.
ZillmannD (1999) Exemplification theory: judging the whole by some of its parts. Media Psychology1(1): 69–94.
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.
