21
International Journal of Public Opinion Research Vol. 24 No. 3 2012 ß The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The World Association for Public Opinion Research. All rights reserved. doi:10.1093/ijpor/eds023 Advance Access publication 11 July 2012 Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence Francis Dalisay 1 , Jay D. Hmielowski 2 , Matthew James Kushin 3 and Masahiro Yamamoto 4 1 School of Communication, College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences, Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH, USA; 2 Department of Communication, The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA; 3 Department of Communication, Shepherd University Shepherdstown, WV, USA; and 4 Communication Studies Department, University of Wisconsin—La Crosse, La Crosse, WI, USA Abstract This study explores the role of social capital in the spiral of silence process and investigates whether (1) individual-level indicators of social capital are associated with willingness to express opinions, (2) individual-level indicators of social capital are associated with the perception that others support one’s opinions, and (3) per- ceived support for one’s opinions mediates the proposed relationship between individual-level social capital and willingness to express opinions. Three commonly examined individual-level indicators of social capital were analyzed—civic engage- ment, trust, and neighborliness. Results of a representative survey conducted on Guam showed that civic engagement had a direct effect on willingness to express opinions. Neighborliness and trust had direct positive effects on perceived support for one’s opinions, which in turn, were positively related to willingness to express opin- ions. Implications were discussed. It was over four decades ago when Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann first introduced public opinion researchers to the spiral of silence theory. A key proposition of this theory is that a positive relationship exists between citizens’ perception that the majority supports their opinions and their willingness to express those opinions (Noelle-Neumann, 1974). This key proposition has been supported by various studies for a wide range of issues (e.g., Glynn & McLeod, 1984; Gozenbach & Stevenson, 1994; Scheufele, 1999). However, two meta-analyses have shown the relationship between perceived support for one’s opinions and All correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Francis Dalisay, PhD, School of Communication, College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences, Cleveland State University, MU 233, Cleveland, OH, USA. E-mail: [email protected]. by guest on September 27, 2013 http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from by guest on September 27, 2013 http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from by guest on September 27, 2013 http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from by guest on September 27, 2013 http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from by guest on September 27, 2013 http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from by guest on September 27, 2013 http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from by guest on September 27, 2013 http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from by guest on September 27, 2013 http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from by guest on September 27, 2013 http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from by guest on September 27, 2013 http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from by guest on September 27, 2013 http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from by guest on September 27, 2013 http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from by guest on September 27, 2013 http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from by guest on September 27, 2013 http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from by guest on September 27, 2013 http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from by guest on September 27, 2013 http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from by guest on September 27, 2013 http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from by guest on September 27, 2013 http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from by guest on September 27, 2013 http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from by guest on September 27, 2013 http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from by guest on September 27, 2013 http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/ Downloaded from

Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence Francis Dalisay ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/Dalisay.IJPOR.pdf · the key proposition of the spiral of silence and

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    2

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence Francis Dalisay ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/Dalisay.IJPOR.pdf · the key proposition of the spiral of silence and

International Journal of Public Opinion Research Vol. 24 No. 3 2012� The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The World Associationfor Public Opinion Research. All rights reserved.doi:10.1093/ijpor/eds023 Advance Access publication 11 July 2012

Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence

Francis Dalisay1, Jay D. Hmielowski2,

Matthew James Kushin3 and Masahiro Yamamoto4

1School of Communication, College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences, Cleveland StateUniversity, Cleveland, OH, USA; 2Department of Communication, The University of Arizona,

Tucson, AZ, USA; 3Department of Communication, Shepherd University Shepherdstown,WV, USA; and 4Communication Studies Department, University of Wisconsin—La Crosse,

La Crosse, WI, USA

Abstract

This study explores the role of social capital in the spiral of silence process and

investigates whether (1) individual-level indicators of social capital are associated

with willingness to express opinions, (2) individual-level indicators of social capital

are associated with the perception that others support one’s opinions, and (3) per-

ceived support for one’s opinions mediates the proposed relationship between

individual-level social capital and willingness to express opinions. Three commonly

examined individual-level indicators of social capital were analyzed—civic engage-

ment, trust, and neighborliness. Results of a representative survey conducted on

Guam showed that civic engagement had a direct effect on willingness to express

opinions. Neighborliness and trust had direct positive effects on perceived support for

one’s opinions, which in turn, were positively related to willingness to express opin-

ions. Implications were discussed.

It was over four decades ago when Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann first introduced

public opinion researchers to the spiral of silence theory. A key proposition of

this theory is that a positive relationship exists between citizens’ perception

that the majority supports their opinions and their willingness to express those

opinions (Noelle-Neumann, 1974). This key proposition has been supported

by various studies for a wide range of issues (e.g., Glynn & McLeod, 1984;

Gozenbach & Stevenson, 1994; Scheufele, 1999). However, two meta-analyses

have shown the relationship between perceived support for one’s opinions and

All correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Francis Dalisay, PhD, School ofCommunication, College of Liberal Arts & Social Sciences, Cleveland State University, MU 233,Cleveland, OH, USA. E-mail: [email protected].

by guest on September 27, 2013

http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

by guest on Septem

ber 27, 2013http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

by guest on September 27, 2013

http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

by guest on Septem

ber 27, 2013http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

by guest on September 27, 2013

http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

by guest on Septem

ber 27, 2013http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

by guest on September 27, 2013

http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

by guest on Septem

ber 27, 2013http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

by guest on September 27, 2013

http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

by guest on Septem

ber 27, 2013http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

by guest on September 27, 2013

http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

by guest on Septem

ber 27, 2013http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

by guest on September 27, 2013

http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

by guest on Septem

ber 27, 2013http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

by guest on September 27, 2013

http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

by guest on Septem

ber 27, 2013http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

by guest on September 27, 2013

http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

by guest on Septem

ber 27, 2013http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

by guest on September 27, 2013

http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

by guest on Septem

ber 27, 2013http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/

Dow

nloaded from

by guest on September 27, 2013

http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/D

ownloaded from

Page 2: Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence Francis Dalisay ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/Dalisay.IJPOR.pdf · the key proposition of the spiral of silence and

outspokenness to be weak at best (Glynn, Hayes, & Shanahan, 1997;

Shanahan, Glynn, & Hayes, 2007). This has increased skepticism regarding

the key proposition of the spiral of silence and stimulated a renewed interest

in augmenting the theory. As a result, researchers have shifted their focus to

other variables that might affect outspokenness—which include, among others,

one’s interest in politics (Kim, Han, Shanahan, & Berdayes, 2004), attention to

news (Lee, 2007), efficacy (Huang, 2005), communication apprehension

(Neuwirth, Frederick, & Mayo, 2007), willingness to self-censor (Hayes,

Glynn, & Shanahan, 2005), and dispositional fear of isolation (Matthes,

Hayes, & Shen, 2009).

In the backdrop of the growing body of spiral of silence research, recent

studies have established social capital as a variable that enables citizens to

develop norms of trust and reciprocity, which are necessary for successful

engagement in collective activities (see Putnam, 2000). For example, research

shows that social capital is associated with higher levels of political participa-

tion (e.g., La Due Lake & Huckfeldt, 1998). Despite the growing literature on

social capital, few studies have examined whether it serves as an antecedent of

political outspokenness. Research on social capital is important because social

factors beyond one’s assessment of public opinion may affect individuals’

willingness to express opinions. Scholars have criticized the spiral of silence

for treating the individual as socially isolated, and failing to account for

affiliation in social groups (Kennamer, 1990; Oshagan, 1996). Oshagan

(1996), for instance, found that individuals rely on reference groups to

assess the climate of opinion. Individuals are likely to express opinions

when their opinions align with those of their reference groups, and less

likely to do so when they do not.

The present study argues that social ties are essential when examining the

spiral of silence process. Given that extant research suggests social capital

facilitates political participation (La Due Lake & Huckfeldt, 1998), and that

people tend to seek out others who agree with their opinions (McPherson,

Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001), which ultimately reduces diversity in their social

networks (Portes, 1998), we expect individual-level indicators of social capital

to play an important role in the spiral of silence. Specifically, our study ana-

lyzes three commonly examined individual-level social capital indicators—civic

engagement, trust, and neighborliness (e.g., Beaudoin & Thorson, 2004;

Beaudoin, 2007; Brehm & Rahn, 1997; Shah, 1998)—and their relationships

with willingness to express opinions and perceived support for one’s opinions.

We argue that greater social capital is related to a greater willingness to

express opinions and higher levels of perceived support for one’s opinions.

Furthermore, we examine a mediation model whereby perceived support for

one’s opinions is hypothesized to transfer the prior effect of social capital on

willingness to express opinions.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L J O U R N A L O F P U B L I C O P I N I O N R E S E A R C H326

Page 3: Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence Francis Dalisay ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/Dalisay.IJPOR.pdf · the key proposition of the spiral of silence and

We test our propositions on the Western Pacific Island of Guam. Guam’s

local residents adhere to collective values such as interdependence and social

consensus (Perez, 2002; Rogers, 1995; Underwood, 1984). Because research

suggests that the spiral of silence is more prominent in collectivistic than

individualistic cultures (Huang, 2005; Scheufele & Moy, 2000), Guam’s col-

lective nature makes it an ideal research context to examine the spiral of

silence.

The Role of Social Capital in the Spiral of Silence

Social capital is composed of informal and formal social connections, or social

ties, which are facilitated through participation in political, civic, religious, and

work-related activities. According to Putnam (1995), social capital refers to the

‘‘features of social life—networks, norms, and trust—that enable participants

to act together more effectively to pursue shared objectives’’ (pp. 664–665).

Although conceptualized as a societal-level factor (Putnam, 1995), numerous

scholars have emphasized the importance of examining the production and

manifestation of social capital at the individual level (e.g., Beaudoin, 2007;

Beaudoin & Thorson, 2004; Brehm & Rahn, 1997; Shah, 1998). As a com-

munity is the aggregate of individuals, macro-level manifestations of social

capital should also be present in the individuals who comprise the community

(Brehm & Rahn, 1997). Following this reasoning, this study uses three com-

monly examined individual-level indicators of social capital: trust, neighborli-

ness, and civic engagement (Brehm & Rahn, 1997; Shah, 1998; Beaudoin,

2007).

Trust is a norm of generalized reciprocity. It is characterized by a glue-like

quality that facilitates participation in formal and informal social networks.

Trust has been shown to be empirically separable from local social bonds

rooted in kinship, friendship, and acquaintanceship ties (Beaudoin &

Thorson, 2004). Citizens who trust others are more likely to volunteer, give

to charity, and participate in politics and civic organizations (Putnam, 2000).

Neighborliness refers to the behavior that occurs in the interactions

between people who live close to each other (Mann, 1954). Neighborliness

involves various forms of informal contact with neighbors, which include

visiting, inviting friends for dinner parties, borrowing or exchanging things

(e.g., yard tools), and watching over neighbors’ properties (Beaudoin &

Thorson, 2004; Mann, 1954). Neighborliness correlates with participation in

formal social groups, such as community organizations (Perkins, Brown, &

Taylor, 1996).

Civic engagement refers to ‘‘membership in formal community groups and

participation in social activities’’ (Shah, 1998, p. 477). Civic engagement in-

volves the process of improving one’s community through nongovernment

S O C I A L C A P I T A L A N D T H E S P I R A L O F S I L E N C E 327

Page 4: Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence Francis Dalisay ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/Dalisay.IJPOR.pdf · the key proposition of the spiral of silence and

action. This includes activities such as church attendance and participation in

community projects (Putnam, 2000; Shah, 1998).

To summarize, consistent with the conceptualization of social capital,

neighborly ties and trust can foster shared expectations among members of

a community and civically beneficial, cooperative behavior. Similarly, activities

such as volunteering and participation in community projects and organiza-

tions cultivate a sense of civic duties and responsibilities and facilitate collect-

ive actions for the interests of a community (Brehm & Rahn, 1997; Shah,

Kwak, & Holbert et al., 2001).

Social Capital and Willingness to Express Opinions

Previous studies have shown relationships between social capital and political

participation (La Due Lake & Huckfeldt, 1998). Forms of political participa-

tion include institutional (e.g., voting and working for a candidate or party)

and deliberative (e.g., opinion expression) participation (McLeod, Scheufele, &

Moy, 1999; Scheufele & Eveland, 2000). The existing evidence focuses mainly

on institutional forms of participation (e.g., Klesner, 2007; La Due Lake &

Huckfeldt, 1998), whereas the effects of social capital on willingness to express

opinions (i.e., deliberative participation) are not entirely clear. The present

study extends the literature on the spiral of silence by first assessing whether

three individual-level indicators of social capital are directly related to opinion

expression. Given the consistently strong relationship between social capital

and institutional forms of behavior, it is expected that a similar relationship

should exist between social capital and deliberative participation.

Trust is an important element that facilitates collective action for common

purposes (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). To the extent that people

are linked collectively by trust, their willingness to engage in cooperative

actions is increased (Sampson et al., 1997), and these actions might include

those that generate controversies within a social network. A study conducted

by Cho and McLeod (2007) found that trust is associated with higher levels of

group involvement and electoral, civic, religious, and protest participation.

Neighborliness promotes informal mechanisms by which residents voluntar-

ily act for each other, such as helping people in need (Freudenburg, 1986).

Intimate neighborly ties foster participation in civic and political groups

(Perkins, et al., 1996) and enable people to share and openly exchange opinions.

Putnam (1995) argues that civic engagement is positively linked with both

democratic participation and vibrancy. Extant research indicates that civic

engagement is associated with political participation (Wilkins, 2000).

Although the reasons for this are multifaceted, from an interpersonal commu-

nication perspective, greater civic activity goes hand-in-hand with greater

interpersonal discussion, and evidence suggests that discussion of political

topics often arises as a byproduct of nonpolitical discussion (Walsh, 2003).

I N T E R N A T I O N A L J O U R N A L O F P U B L I C O P I N I O N R E S E A R C H328

Page 5: Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence Francis Dalisay ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/Dalisay.IJPOR.pdf · the key proposition of the spiral of silence and

Greater interpersonal political discussion is associated with increased political

participation as individuals gain political efficacy, knowledge, and sophistication,

all of which lead them to refine and solidify their political opinions through

dialogue (Katz, 1992; McLeod, Scheufele, & Moy, 1999 and McLeod et al.,

1999; Price, Cappella, & Nir, 2002).

Based on the literature reviewed earlier, individuals who have greater trust

in their community, are neighborly, and are engaged in their community

should feel more comfortable about speaking out. Thus, we propose the fol-

lowing hypotheses:

H1: (a) Trust, (b) neighborliness, and (c) civic engagement will be positively associated

with willingness to express opinions.

Social Capital and Perceived Support for One’s Opinions

We also propose that these individual-level indicators of social capital are

positively associated with the perception that others support one’s opinions.

Research indicates that people tend to flock to similar others. In essence,

people tend to form and join groups that they perceive as possessing a set

of values similar to theirs. For example, people often choose a church with the

expectation that the values preached from the lectern are similar to their own.

With this expectation comes the perception that others share similar views of

the world. It is possible that as people increase their level of social capital, they

will perceive that those around them share their opinions on important issues.

This expectation is based on two theoretical lines of social capital research:

homophily and social control.

Nevertheless, because greater social integration lends itself to increased

involvement in associations, an argument could also be made that a gain in

social capital increases the number of people in one’s social network who hold

opposing opinions. However, the relationship between having diverse social

interactions and political outcomes is less clear. Some research has supported

the notion that greater heterogeneity leads to political participation (McLeod,

Scheufele, & Moy, 1999 and McLeod et al., 1999; Scheufele, Nisbet,

Brossard, & Nisbet, 2004), whereas others show that homogeneity is more

strongly linked to political participation (Eveland & Hutchens, 2009; Mutz,

2002).

Social network theory demonstrates that individuals tend to self-select

their connections, which results in people associating with similar others

(Huckfeldt & Sprague, 1995; McPherson et al., 2001). This sociological phe-

nomenon is termed homophily and is widely supported in the literature across

a number of demographic variables, including race, age, gender, religion, edu-

cation and occupation (McPherson et al., 2001). Homophily is central to the

concept of social capital. As Mouw (2006) stated, it may be that social capital’s

S O C I A L C A P I T A L A N D T H E S P I R A L O F S I L E N C E 329

Page 6: Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence Francis Dalisay ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/Dalisay.IJPOR.pdf · the key proposition of the spiral of silence and

effects are reflective of selectivity in forming homophilous social groups.

Associating with a group articulates a set of values and beliefs, which likely

leads to perceived similarities between members of the group (Jussim &

Osgood, 1989; Huckfeldt & Sprague, 1995). For instance, research shows

that people generally self-segregate in the communities where they live, and

that people tend to form bonds with like-minded neighbors (e.g., Lee,

Campbell, & Miller, 1991). Consequently, the homophilous structure that

makes up close social networks potentially limits an individual’s experiences

and access to information, minimizing their exposure to a diversity of ideas.

Along similar lines, Portes (1998) stated that a basic function served by

social capital is social control, which can be defined as the capacity of a social

group to enforce norms and, as a result, regulate itself according to common

ends (Janowitz, 1975; Reiss, 1951). One source of social capital is bounded

solidarity. This bounding tightens groups of similar individuals (e.g., immi-

grants and minorities), induces norms of expectation and reciprocity, and

promotes compliance and discipline to norms. When social capital functions

as a form of social control, it renders formal or overt controls unnecessary.

Coleman (1988) stated that norms constitute a form of social capital by facil-

itating particular actions, yet constraining others. As a case in point, Coleman

explained the norm that people should act in the interests of their collective

and forgo their self-interests constitutes a form of social capital, and this norm

is ‘‘reinforced by social support, status, honor, and other rewards’’ (p. 104).

Prior research has shown, for instance, that social capital components includ-

ing trust, neighborliness, and civic engagement increase the social control

capacity of a community, reducing rates of crime in neighborhoods (Bellair,

2000; Hawdon & Ryan, 2009; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Veysey & Messner,

1999). Through trusting in others, strong neighborly commitment, and higher

civic engagement, individuals may defer their self-interest and act in a way

consistent with the group. This integration may act as a way to conform

people to hold similar attitudes and beliefs as those around them.

In sum, as the principle of homophily states, ‘‘birds of a feather flock

together.’’ It is logical to expect that citizens who are strongly connected with

others, and have high social capital, as demonstrated through trust, neighbor-

liness, and civic engagement, would perceive that others hold opinions similar

to theirs. Thus, we propose the following hypotheses:

H2: (a) Trust, (b) neighborliness, and (c) civic engagement will be positively associated

with perceived support for one’s opinions.

The Mediating Role of Perceived Support for One’s Opinions

The relationship between perceived support for one’s opinions and opinion

expression is a key proposition of the spiral of silence theory. The theory

I N T E R N A T I O N A L J O U R N A L O F P U B L I C O P I N I O N R E S E A R C H330

Page 7: Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence Francis Dalisay ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/Dalisay.IJPOR.pdf · the key proposition of the spiral of silence and

states that the decision to express an opinion is influenced by surveillance of

the social environment to gauge whether the majority shares the opinion

(Noelle-Neumann, 1974). As noted earlier, previous studies have demonstrated

this relationship, and recent meta-analyses confirm the relationship as signifi-

cant (Glynn et al., 1997; Shanahan et al., 2007). In line with these studies, we

also test the following hypothesis:

H3: Perceived support for one’s opinions will be positively associated with willingness to

express opinions.

Finally, perceived support for one’s opinions is posited to mediate the

relationship between individual-level indicators of social capital and willing-

ness to express opinions. Perceived similarities serve as a catalyst for starting

conversation (Walsh, 2003), which is critical to assessing the opinions of social

contacts. The reference group research supports this reasoning, showing that

reference groups, rather than society at large, are key factors that influence

citizens’ perceptions of the climate of opinion (Oshagan, 1996). Based on the

hypotheses outlined thus far, it is possible that there is an indirect effect of

our three individual-level indicators of social capital on citizens’ willingness to

express opinions through their perceived agreement with others. In essence,

people’s perception of others’ opinions explains the relationship between

individual-level indicators of social capital and people’s willingness to express

opinions.

A mediation model is designed to explicate the underlying process by

which a presumed independent variable is related to a subsequent outcome

via a third explanatory, mediating variable (Baron & Kenny, 1986; Hayes,

2009). The hypotheses proposed earlier provide the conceptual framework

for our mediation model. Specifically, we posited that our individual-level

indicators of social capital (i.e., trust, neighborliness, and civic engagement)

should be related to our proposed mediator, people’s perception that others

support their opinions (see hypotheses 2a through 2c). Moreover, hypothesis 3posits that perceiving others to hold similar opinions should lead to a greater

willingness to express opinions. Based on this rational, a final set of

mediation-based hypotheses is proposed:

H4: Perceived support for one’s opinion will serve as a mediator of the association

between (a) trust, (b) neighborliness, and (c) civic engagement and willingness to express

one’s opinions, with trust, neighborliness, and civic engagement leading to greater per-

ceived support for one’s opinions and greater willingness to express one’s opinions.

The Research Context: Guam and the Military Buildup

We test our predictions in the context of local public opinion expression

concerning an impending U.S. military buildup in the Western Pacific

S O C I A L C A P I T A L A N D T H E S P I R A L O F S I L E N C E 331

Page 8: Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence Francis Dalisay ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/Dalisay.IJPOR.pdf · the key proposition of the spiral of silence and

Island of Guam. This military buildup involves the relocation of 8,600 U.S.

Marines and more than 10,000 of their dependents and civilian support from

Okinawa, Japan to Guam (estimates cited in Fuentes, 2009).

Guam is located roughly 2,000 miles north of the tip of Australia, 3,700miles west of Hawaii, and 1,500 miles east of the Philippines. Its population is

estimated at 154,000 residents, composed of 44.6% Pacific Islanders, 32.5 %

Asians, and 6.8 % White-Americans (U.S. Census, 2004). As the largest island

in Micronesia at 30 miles long and 12 miles wide, Guam has served as a site

for bases and installations of the U.S. Air Force and Navy. The U.S. military

presence on Guam serves a vital role in sustaining the island’s economy.

Historically, Guam has relied on a tourism industry, with most visitors

arriving from Japan. However, due to Japan’s recent economic circumstances,

Guam’s tourism industry has struggled, resulting in a sharp economic down-

turn. Local leaders and residents have sought to increase U.S. military

presence with the hopes of revitalizing the island’s economy. Although a

majority of Guam residents support the military buildup for economic pur-

poses, some have expressed concerns about its potential negative impacts to

the island’s environment and culture (Murphy, 2008). Yet two polls conducted

on Guam indicated that a majority endorses the buildup (Guam Variety, 2011;

Tamondong, 2009). A poll conducted in 2009, during the same year in which

data were collected for the present study, indicated that 70% of the island

supported the military buildup, and 82% believed it would bring in tax

revenue and create jobs (Tamondong, 2009). For a spiral of silence to

occur, a critical criterion that a majority must be supportive of a controversial

issue (Scheufele & Moy, 2000) must be met, hence we chose the context of

Guam, as a majority of the island’s residents support the buildup.

Method

Sample and Procedure

The final sample composed of a representative 319 registered voters of Guam.

Results show that 56% of the respondents were female. The mean age was 48(SD¼ 15.97). The population was relatively educated, with most respondents

completing ‘‘some college, no degree’’ (n¼ 87, 27.4%) or having a college

degree (n¼ 73, 23%). The three ethnicities most represented in the sample

were Chamorro (i.e., indigenous residents of Guam) (n¼ 169, 53.3%),

Filipino (n¼ 99, 31.2%), and Caucasian (n¼ 26, 8.2%).

A co-author of this study traveled from the U.S. mainland to Guam in the

summer of 2009, and collected data through a self-administered mail survey of

a systematic random sample of registered voters on the island. Names and

postal addresses of registered voters on Guam were obtained from the Guam

Election Commission (GEC). The GEC director stated that there are roughly

I N T E R N A T I O N A L J O U R N A L O F P U B L I C O P I N I O N R E S E A R C H332

Page 9: Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence Francis Dalisay ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/Dalisay.IJPOR.pdf · the key proposition of the spiral of silence and

52,000 registered voters on Guam (personal communication, March 7, 2009).

Surveys were sent to 1,100 registered voters. Strategies from Dillman, Smyth,

and Christian’s (2009) Tailored Design Method were adopted to implement the

mail survey.1 The present study used only two of the five compatible contacts

recommended by Dillman and his colleagues. Respondents were first sent a

survey packet during the first week of June 2009. The packet included a

detailed cover letter explaining why a response was important, the question-

naire, a self-addressed stamped return envelope, and a $1 token incentive. The

cover letter was personalized, printed on institutional letterhead displaying the

name and logo of the sponsoring U.S. mainland university, and assured

respondents that their answers would remain confidential. A week after the

packet was sent, respondents were mailed a thank you postcard. This

expressed appreciation for responding, and reminded those who had not

returned the survey to do so.

One hundred seventy-three of the survey packets were undeliverable

(i.e., the address did not exist, the respondent had relocated or no longer

received mail in the address, the respondent was deceased), reducing the

sampling frame to 927. Total response rate was 34.4%, as calculated using

the American Association for Public Opinion Research’s (2009) response rate

2. Data collection ended July 3, 2009. Questionnaires returned after this date

were not included in the analyses. One-way analyses of variance showed no

significant differences in item scores between questionnaires that were re-

turned during the first, second, third, fourth, or fifth week. This indicated

that the pattern of responses did not change over five weeks.

Measures

Independent variables2

Trust. Trust was measured with one item adapted from Beaudoin and

Thorson (2004), ‘‘Most local people on Guam can be trusted’’ (1¼ stronglydisagree, 7¼ strongly agree; M¼ 4.79, SD¼ 1.61).

1The authors thank Dr. Don A. Dillman for the advice he provided on how to best implement a mailsurvey on Guam. Dillman is familiar with the cultural dynamics on Guam and has been to the island toserve as a research consultant.

2A series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted looking at the items measuring civicengagement, neighborliness, and trust using Mplus version 6.11. Specifically, the CFAs tested a one-factormodel in which all the items were part of the latent construct of social capital, a three-factor model in whichtrust, neighborliness, and civic engagement were three separate variables, and a final model in which thethree variables were part of a higher order latent variable of social capital. The results showed poor fit for aone-factor model. The analysis did find adequate fit for the three-factor model that treats our variables asseparate constructs. Finally, the CFA for the higher-order, 3-factor model did not converge. The reason thisfinal model did not converge is because civic engagement was not correlated with neighborliness and trust.Although these variables were not part of a higher order factor of social capital, the results do show thatneighborliness was highly correlated with trust. Moreover, the lack of relationships between trust/neigh-borliness and civic engagement may speak to the theoretical standpoint of bridging and bonding socialcapital.

S O C I A L C A P I T A L A N D T H E S P I R A L O F S I L E N C E 333

Page 10: Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence Francis Dalisay ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/Dalisay.IJPOR.pdf · the key proposition of the spiral of silence and

Neighborliness. Neighborliness was measured with three items adapted

from Beaudoin and Thorson (2004): (a) ‘‘within the last year, how often did

you borrow or exchange things with your neighbors,’’ (b) ‘‘within the last

year, how often did you visit your neighbors,’’ and (c) ‘‘within the last year,

how often have you and your neighbors helped one another with small tasks,

such as repair work’’ (1¼ not often, 7¼ very often). The items were averaged to

form one index (�¼ .87, M¼ 4.20, SD¼ 1.80).

Civic engagement. Seven items were adapted from Cuillier (2008) to

measure civic engagement. Respondents rated the level of importance that

certain activities have in their lives: (a) ‘‘giving blood,’’ (b) ‘‘signing commu-

nity petitions,’’ (c) ‘‘attending public meetings, rallies, or speeches,’’ (d) ‘‘at-

tending religious services,’’ (e) ‘‘contacting and talking to elected officials,’’

(f) ‘‘volunteering for community organizations,’’ and (g) ‘‘contributing money

to a political or public interest campaign’’ (1¼ not important at all, 7¼ very

important). The items were averaged to form one index (�¼ .79, M¼ 4.75,

SD¼ 1.69).

Mediating variable

Perceived Support for One’s Opinions. Perceived support for one’s opin-

ions was measured by asking respondents about the extent to which they

agreed or disagreed that the following people shared their opinions on the

buildup: (a) family, (b) friends, (c) the present majority of Guam, and (d) the

future majority of Guam (1¼ strongly disagree, 7¼ strongly agree). The items

were averaged to form one index (�¼ .79, M¼ 4.93, SD¼ 1.26).

Dependent variable

Willingness to Express Opinions. Respondents were asked how willing

they were to express their opinions about the buildup in four public contexts:

(a) a community meeting, (b) a TV interview, (c) a barbecue,3 and (d) a

restaurant (1¼ not willing, 7¼ very willing). The items were averaged to

form one index (�¼ .84, M¼ 4.67, SD¼ 1.60).

Control variables.

Previous research shows that those who are interested in politics (Kim et al.,

2004; Lee et al., 2004), are knowledgeable (Shamir, 1997), and pay attention to

media (Lasorsa, 1991) are also more likely to be outspoken. Thus, these

3This item, along with the ‘‘restaurant’’ item, are adaptations of the hypothetical ‘‘train’’ and ‘‘bus’’scenario question used in previous spiral of silence studies. There are no trains on Guam, and becausepublic transportation is minimal, particularly by bus, respondents may not have been able to provideappropriate answers if they were asked the question of whether they would be willing to join a conversationamong others they were riding in a public mode of transportation. It is far more common for Guam’sresidents to attend barbecues and frequent public restaurants. Therefore, these settings are more appropriateand culturally relevant.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L J O U R N A L O F P U B L I C O P I N I O N R E S E A R C H334

Page 11: Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence Francis Dalisay ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/Dalisay.IJPOR.pdf · the key proposition of the spiral of silence and

variables were measured and added to the regression models as controls.

Political interest was measured by asking, ‘‘How interested would you say

you are regarding issues on the buildup?’’ (1¼ not interested, 7¼ very interested;

M¼ 5.35, SD¼ 1.70). Perceived knowledge was measured by asking, ‘‘How

knowledgeable would you say you are regarding issues on the buildup?’’

(1¼ not knowledgeable, 7¼ very knowledgeable; M¼ 4.63, SD¼ 1.47).

Respondents were also asked how much attention they pay to the following

news media to stay informed or to learn about the buildup: (a) the Pacific

Daily News (a local newspaper with the largest circulation size on Guam) and

(b) local TV and radio newscasts (1¼ not much attention, 7¼ lots of attention).

These two items were highly correlated (r¼ .67, p< .001) and averaged to

form a single index (M¼ 5.21, SD¼ 1.55).

For descriptive and control purposes, personal support was measured

by asking respondents about the extent to which they agreed or disagreed

with the statement, ‘‘I support the military buildup’’ (1¼ strongly disagree,

7¼ strongly agree; M¼ 5.11, SD¼ 1.96). Demographics were also included

in the analyses and measured by asking respondents to report their sex,

age, household’s income before taxes, highest level of education, and

race. The race item was turned into a dichotomous variable (1¼Chamorro,

2¼ non-Chamorro).

Analyses

To analyze the data and test the proposed hypotheses, a series of OLS

regression models were created. These models tested the proposed relation-

ships between the individual-level indicators of social capital (i.e., trust, neigh-

borliness, and civic engagement) and willingness to express opinions

(H1a–H1c). These models also tested the relationship between trust, neigh-

borliness, and civic engagement and perceived support for one’s opinions

(H2a–H2c). An additional model examined the relationship between perceived

support for one’s opinions and willingness to express opinions (H3). Finally,

the MEDIATE macro developed by Hayes and Preacher (Under Review) was

used to simultaneously estimate the indirect effects of the individual-level

indicators of social capital (trust, neighborliness, and civic engagement) on

willingness to express opinions through the mediating variable of perceived

support for one’s opinions (H4a–H4c).

Results

Hypothesis 1 proposed that (a) trust, (b) neighborliness, and (c) civic engage-

ment would be associated with greater willingness to express opinions. As

Table 1 shows, results supported H1c, which focused on civic engagement

(�¼ .142 [SE¼ .064], p< .05). However, there was no support for H1a or

S O C I A L C A P I T A L A N D T H E S P I R A L O F S I L E N C E 335

Page 12: Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence Francis Dalisay ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/Dalisay.IJPOR.pdf · the key proposition of the spiral of silence and

H1b, which respectively proposed that trust (�¼ .071 [SE¼ .041], p> .05)

and neighborliness (�¼ .006 [SE¼ .067], p> .05) would be associated with

willingness to express opinions.

Hypothesis 2 proposed that (a) trust, (b) neighborliness, and (c) civic

engagement would be associated with greater perceived support for one’s

opinions. As Table 2 shows, results supported H2a and H2b, which respect-

ively proposed that trust (�¼ .074 [SE¼ .035], p< .05) and neighborliness

(�¼ .152 [SE¼ .058], p< .05) would be associated with perceived support

for one’s opinions. However, there was no support for H2c, which proposed

that civic engagement would be associated with perceived support for one’s

opinions (�¼ .033 [SE¼ .055], p> .05).

Results also support H3. The analysis showed that perceived support for

one’s opinions is associated with greater willingness to express opinions

(�¼ .237 [SE¼ .068], p< .05).

The final set of proposed hypotheses examined whether perceived support

for one’s opinions mediates the relationship between trust, neighborliness, and

civic engagement, and willingness to express opinions (H4a–H4c). Using

Hayes and Preacher’s MEDIATE macro, one analysis was conducted that

simultaneously estimated the indirect effects of each independent variable

through support for one’s opinion on willingness to express opinions.

Results show support for H4a and H4b, which respectively proposed that

Table 1Predicting Willingness to Express One’s Opinions

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Age .003 (.005) .003 (.005) .004 (.004)Sex .076 (.144) .094 (.143) .067 (.139)Income �.046 (.045) �.037 (.044) �.023 (.043)Education �.119 (.050)* �.110 (.049)* �.116 (.048)*Ethnicity �.147 (.145) �.109 (.144) �.152 (.140)Personal Support .038 (.038) .041 (.037) �.041 (.041)Interest .308 (.051)*** .287 (.052)*** .258 (.051)***Knowledge .375 (.062)*** .342 (.062)*** .311 (061)***Attention to media .112 (.053)* .091 (.053) .080 (.052)Neighborliness .076 (.040) .051 (.040)Trust -.046 (.045) -.073 (.045)Civic Engagement .149 (.064)* .139 (.062)*Perceived support for one’s

opinions.284 (.068)***

Constant 1.122 .526 .243R2 .471*** .492*** .522***

Note. Table presents unstandardized coefficients and standard errors.*p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L J O U R N A L O F P U B L I C O P I N I O N R E S E A R C H336

Page 13: Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence Francis Dalisay ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/Dalisay.IJPOR.pdf · the key proposition of the spiral of silence and

there would be an indirect effect of trust (point estimate¼ .028, 95% CI: .005to.058) and neighborliness (point estimate¼ .025, 95% CI: .005 to .050)

through perceived support for one’s opinions on willingness to express opin-

ions. However, there was no support for H4c, which proposed the same in-

direct relationship for civic engagement (point estimate¼ .011, 95% CI: �

.021 to .044) on willingness to express opinions.

Discussion

This study explored how individual-level indicators of social capital fit into

the spiral of silence process. We investigated whether (1) these indicators were

positively associated with willingness to express opinions, (2) whether these

indicators were positively associated with the perception that others support

one’s opinions, and (3) whether perceived support for one’s opinions mediates

the proposed relationship between these individual-level indicators of social

capital and willingness to express opinions. These hypotheses were tested in

the context of local public opinion expression regarding a U.S. military

buildup that may occur on Guam.

Several conclusions can be derived from the present findings. First, civic

engagement had a direct effect on people’s willingness to express opinions.

This finding reinforces Putnam’s (1995) notion that civic engagement is

linked with both democratic participation and vibrancy, and research indicat-

ing that civic engagement is associated with political participation (e.g.,

Table 2Predicting Perceived Support for One’s Opinions

Model 1 Model 2

Age .000 (.004) �.001 (.004)Sex .076 (.125) .095 (.122)Income �.039 (.039) �.047 (.038)Education �.001 (.043) .021 (.042)Ethnicity .154 (.126) .151 (.124)Personal Support .294 (.032)*** .290 (.032)***Interest .141 (.044)** .103 (.045)*Knowledge .130 (.053)* .109 (.053)*Attention to media .053 (.046) .038 (.045)Neighborliness .088 (.035)*Trust .098 (.039)*Civic Engagement .037 (.055)Constant 1.65*** 1.00R2 .405*** .437***

Note. Table presents unstandardized coefficients and standard errors.*p< .05, **p< .01, ***p< .001.

S O C I A L C A P I T A L A N D T H E S P I R A L O F S I L E N C E 337

Page 14: Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence Francis Dalisay ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/Dalisay.IJPOR.pdf · the key proposition of the spiral of silence and

Wilkins, 2000). Civic engagement fosters opinion expression likely because

voluntary action and institutional participation often benefit the larger com-

munity such as helping people in need, community safety, and decision

making that reflects the common good (Swaroop & Morenoff, 2006). To

the extent that civic engagement rests on a pro-social mentality oriented

toward the betterment of a community, people show a greater willingness to

express opinions.

Second, neighborliness and trust had direct positive effects on perceived

support for one’s opinions. Strong neighborly ties and trust form the percep-

tion that others share one’s opinions because intimate social interaction and

identification tend to stem from networks that rest on strong bonds among

group members (Gittell & Vidal, 1998; Portes, 1998). People rely on their

reference groups rather than society at large when making judgments about

the opinion climate (e.g., Oshagan, 1996). Third, consistent with the literature

(e.g., Glynn & McLeod, 1984; Glynn et al., 1997), perceived support for one’s

opinions had a direct effect on willingness to express opinions. These findings

support a key proposition of the spiral of silence theory stating that when

citizens perceive that others support their opinions, they will feel more com-

fortable expressing their opinions (Noelle-Neumann, 1974).

Finally, neighborliness and trust were indirectly associated with willingness

to express opinions via perceived support for one’s opinions. On the other

hand, civic engagement did not have an indirect effect on opinion expression

through perceived support for one’s opinions. These findings may be inter-

preted within the context of different dimensions of social capital. Scholars

have distinguished bonding social capital from bridging social capital (Lin,

2005; Putnam, 2000). Bonding, or homophilous social capital, is the strong

ties with kin and close friends that offers social support, builds collectivity,

and is shared among people with similar values and goals (Lin, 2005; Putnam,

2000). Bridging, or heterophilous social capital, on the other hand, is

goal-oriented and offers networking opportunities and access to external re-

sources via extra-community ties (Gittell & Vidal, 1998; Putnam, 2000).

For example, the indirect effects of neighborliness and trust suggest that

these individual-level social capital indicators are linked with bounded solidar-

ity (Gittell & Vidal, 1998; Portes, 1998). Dense neighborly interaction and

trust lead to the formation of the perception that others in their networks

share their opinions, as association with a group serves to articulate a set of

values and beliefs and therefore fosters perceived similarities between members

of the group (Jussim & Osgood, 1989; Huckfeldt & Sprague, 1995). This may

explain why neighborliness and trust were not directly associated with will-

ingness to express opinions. These results indicate that people with close ties

to others in their community may find it important that others support their

opinions before deciding to express those opinions.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L J O U R N A L O F P U B L I C O P I N I O N R E S E A R C H338

Page 15: Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence Francis Dalisay ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/Dalisay.IJPOR.pdf · the key proposition of the spiral of silence and

In contrast, our finding of only a direct (but not indirect) effect of civic

engagement on opinion expression further highlights a potential difference

between bonding and bridging social capital. It might be that civic engagement

is more conducive to connecting people across social divides (e.g., race, class,

religion) than reinforcing ties in a closely-knit group of people (e.g., family,

friends). Participating in civic activities such as community organizations

and public meetings could enable people to meet and interact with those

from different social and cultural backgrounds, and learn different ideas and

perspectives that they may not regularly encounter in everyday life. This

bridging quality of civic engagement, combined with its orientation to larger

social goals, may enable people to overcome the expectation that others hold

similar opinions to their own. It is possible, therefore, that the quality and

consequences of social relationships rooted in civic engagement are different

from social relationships that rest on strong bonds among group members.

That is, a stronger relationship may exist between civic engagement and

heterogeneity than homogeneity, as has been shown in some political partici-

pation research (McLeod, Scheufele, & Moy, 1999 and McLeod et al., 1999;

Scheufele, Nisbet, Brossard, & Nisbet, 2004).

In addition to highlighting the contributions of this article, it is important to

acknowledge this study’s limitations. First, because the present study aimed to

investigate individual-level indicators of social capital, we did not specifically

measure differential effects of bonding and bridging social capital on opinion

expression. Given the potentially differential effects of bonding and bridging

social capital on opinion expression noted earlier, future research should further

explicate the mechanisms by which they promote or constrain a person’s willing-

ness to express opinions. Second, the present sample was restricted to registered

voters, which might limit the generalizability of the results to the entire adult

population of Guam. For example, registered voters may have higher levels of

political interest or political involvement compared with unregistered voters.

Third, although our measure of perceived support for one’s opinions was reliable,

we recommend that future research also examine results using additional meas-

ures of this variable, such as those used by other studies (e.g., Glynn & McLeod,

1984). Fourth, we believe scholars should use a better measure of trust in future

research projects. Although we found statistically significant findings, it would be

ideal to use a multi-item trust index instead of the one item used in the present

study (see Uslaner [2002] for items). Fifth, although suggestive, the present

study’s use of cross-sectional data limits what can be said about causality between

these variables. Our goal was to provide a more comprehensive understanding of

how these variables work within our proposed communication model. Our med-

iating model was theoretically derived from the literature on homophily and social

control aspects of social capital (e.g., Huckfeldt & Sprague, 1995; Portes, 1998),

which suggest that people develop shared expectations of how others feel and

S O C I A L C A P I T A L A N D T H E S P I R A L O F S I L E N C E 339

Page 16: Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence Francis Dalisay ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/Dalisay.IJPOR.pdf · the key proposition of the spiral of silence and

respond through social and cognitive involvement. Thus, it was reasonable to

expect that perceived support for one’s opinions would be cultivated through the

three indicators examined in this study, without which it would be difficult for

people to form common values. Nevertheless, alternative models are equally

plausible such as one in which perceived support for one’s opinion, or perceived

opinion diversity (Wojcieszak, Baek, & Delli Carpini, 2010), leads to opinion

expression through civic engagement (Wojcieszak et al., 2010), neighborliness,

and trust. Thus, future studies should specify and test a set of theoretically

plausible models in quasi-experimental settings that allow for causal inferences.

Sixth, there is a lack of consensus on how best to measure social capital at the

macro, micro, and meso levels (see Claridge, 2004). Although the individual-level

measures used in the present study have been affirmed in prior research and have

been shown to have a social control function, future research should assess the role

of other individual-level indicators of social capital such as life satisfaction (Shah

et al., 2001) in affecting opinion expression. Future research should also seek to

clarify the link between outspokenness and social capital from a social control

perspective. Finally, the unique nature of our sample begs the question of gen-

eralizability. Guam’s local residents adhere to collective values such as inter-

dependence, social consensus, respect for old age, reciprocity, and family

obligation (Rogers, 1995), all of which speaks to close ties between reference

groups. This suggests that the island’s social structure is homophilous; therefore,

these findings could be unique to cultures that are exclusively collectivistic and

homophilous (e.g., other Pacific Islands, islands around the world). Furthermore,

research indicates the spiral of silence is more prominent in collectivistic than

individualistic cultures (e.g., Huang, 2005). It could thus be that collectivistic and

homophilous cultures would facilitate opinion climates that are more susceptible

to the spiral of silence, whereas cultures that are individualistic and heterophilous

would facilitate climates that are less susceptible. This potential needs to be fur-

ther examined in cross-cultural studies.

Despite the earlier limitations, this study concludes by noting that

individual-level social capital serves as a protective factor against the spiral

of silence. Those with higher levels of individual-level social capital, as mea-

sured with our indicators, may be more likely to perceive that their opinions

are held by the majority and more willing to express their opinions; those with

low capital may be less likely to perceive that their opinions are held by the

majority and less willing to express their opinions.

References

American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2009). Standard definitions: Final

dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. Retrieved from

http://www.aapor.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section¼Standard_

Definitions1&Template¼/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID¼1814.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L J O U R N A L O F P U B L I C O P I N I O N R E S E A R C H340

Page 17: Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence Francis Dalisay ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/Dalisay.IJPOR.pdf · the key proposition of the spiral of silence and

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in

social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Beaudoin, C. E. (2007). Mass media use, neighborliness, and social support: Assessing

causal links with panel data. Communication Research, 34, 637–664. doi: 10.1177/

0093650207307902.

Beaudoin, C. E., & Thorson, E. (2004). Social capital in rural and urban communities:

Testing differences in media effects and models. Journalism and Mass

Communication Quarterly, 81, 378–399.

Bellair, P. E. (2000). Informal surveillance and street crime: A complex relationship.

Criminology, 38, 137–169.

Brehm, J., & Rahn, W. (1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and conse-

quences of social capital. American Journal of Political Sciences, 41, 999–1023.

Cho, J., & McLeod, D. M. (2007). Structural antecedents to knowledge and partici-

pation: Extending the knowledge gap concept to participation. Journal of

Communication, 57, 205–228. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.2007.00340.x.

Claridge, T. (2004). Social Capital and Natural Resource Management. Unpublished

master’s thesis, Brisbane, Australia: University of Queensland.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). The creation and destruction of social capital: Implications for

the law. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy, 3, 375–404.

Cuillier, D. (2008). Access attitudes: A social learning approach to examine commu-

nity engagement and support for press access to government records. Journalism &

Mass Communication Quarterly, 85, 549–576.

Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and

mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Eveland, W. P., & Hutchens, M. H. (2009). Political discussion frequency, network

size, and ‘‘heterogeneity’’ of discussion as predictors of political knowledge and

participation. Journal of Communication, 59, 205–224. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.

2009.01412.x.

Freudenburg, W. R. (1986). The density of acquaintanceship: An overlooked variable

in community research? American Journal of Sociology, 92, 27–63.

Fuentes, G. (2009, December 14). Navy outlines plans for base in Guam. The Marine

Corps Times. Retrieved from http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2009/12/

marine_guam_121309/.

Gittell, R. J., & Vidal, A. (1998). Community organizing: Building social capital as a

development strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Glynn, C. J., Hayes, A. F., & Shanahan, J. (1997). Perceived support for one’s

opinions and willingness to speak out. Public Opinion Quarterly, 61, 452–463.

Glynn, C. J., & McLeod, J. M. (1984). Public opinion du jour: An examination of the

spiral of silence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 731–740. doi: 10.1086/268879.

Gozenbach, S., & Stevenson, R. L. (1994). Children with AIDS attending public

schools: An analysis of the spiral of silence. Political Communication, 11, 3–18.

doi: 10.1080/10584604.1994.9963007.

Guam Variety. (2011). Guam leaders respond to buildup poll results. Retrieved from

http://mvguam.com/index.php?option¼com_content&view¼article&id¼18663%

3Aguam-leaders-respond-to-buildup-poll-results&Itemid¼61.

S O C I A L C A P I T A L A N D T H E S P I R A L O F S I L E N C E 341

Page 18: Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence Francis Dalisay ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/Dalisay.IJPOR.pdf · the key proposition of the spiral of silence and

Hawdon, J., & Ryan, J. (2009). Social capital, social control, and changes in victim-

ization rates. Crime & Delinquency, 55, 526–549.

Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the

new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408–420. doi: 10.1080/

03637750903310360.

Hayes, A. F., Glynn, C. J., & Shanahan, J. (2005). Validating the willingness to

self-censor scale: Individual differences in the effect of the climate of opinion on

opinion expression. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17, 443–455.

doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edh072.

Hayes, A. F., & Preacher, K. J. (Under Review). Indirect and direct effects of a

multicategorical causal agent in statistical mediation analysis. Retrieved from

http://www.afhayes.com/public/hp2011.pdf.

Huang, H. (2005). A cross-cultural test of the spiral of silence. International Journal of

Public Opinion Research, 17, 324–345. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/edh065.

Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication:

Information and influence in an election campaign. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Janowitz, M. (1975). Sociological theory and social control. American Journal of

Sociology, 81, 82–108.

Jussim, L., & Osgood, D. W. (1989). Influence and similarity among friends: An

integrative model applied to incarcerated adolescents. Social Psychology Quarterly,

52, 98–112.

Katz, E. (1992). On parenting a paradigm: Gabriel Tarde’s agenda for opinion

and communication research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 4,

80–85.

Kennamer, D. (1990). Self-serving biases in perceiving the opinions of others:

Implications for the spiral of silence. Communication Research, 17, 393–404. doi:

10.1177/009365090017003006.

Kim, S. H., Han, M., Shanahan, J., & Berdayes, V. (2004). Talking on ‘sunshine in

North Korea’: A test of the spiral of silence as a theory of powerful mass media.

International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 16, 39–62. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/

16.1.39.

Klesner, J. (2007). Social capital and political participation in Latin America. Latin

American Research Review, 42, 1–32.

La Due Lake, R., & Huckfeldt, R. (1998). Social capital, social networks, and political

participation. Political Psychology, 19, 567–584. doi: 10.1111/0162-895X.00118.

Lasorsa, D. L. (1991). Political outspokenness: Factors working against the spiral of

silence. Journalism Quarterly, 68, 131–140.

Lee, B. A., Campbell, K. E., & Miller, O. (1991). Racial differences in urban neigh-

boring. Sociological Forum, 6, 525–550. doi: 10.1007/BF01114475.

Lee, W., Detenber, B. H., Willnat, L., Aday, S., & Grad, J. (2004). A cross-cultural

test of the spiral of silence theory in Singapore and the United States. Asian Journal

of Communication, 14, 204–226.

Lee, F. L. F. (2007). Talk radio listening, opinion expression and political discussion

in a democratizing society. Asian Journal of Communication, 17, 78–96. doi:

10.1080/01292980601114588.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L J O U R N A L O F P U B L I C O P I N I O N R E S E A R C H342

Page 19: Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence Francis Dalisay ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/Dalisay.IJPOR.pdf · the key proposition of the spiral of silence and

Lin, N. (2005). A network theory of social capital. In D. Castiglione, J. Van Derth &

G. Wolleb (Eds.), Handbook of social capital. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Mann, P. H. (1954). The concept of neighborliness. American Journal of Sociology, 60,

163–168.

Matthes, J., Hayes, A., & Shen, F. (2009, May). Dispositional fear of social isolation

and willingness to self-censor: A cross-cultural test of spiral of silence theory

Presented at the annual conference of the International Communication

Association, Chicago, IL.

McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., & Moy, P. (1999). Community, communication,

and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local

political participation. Political Communication, 16, 315–336. doi: 10.1080/

105846099198659.

McLeod, J. M., Scheufele, D. A., Moy, P., Horowitz, E. M., Holbert, R. L.,

Zhang, W., Zubric, S., & Zubric, J. (1999). Understanding deliberation: The effects

of discussion networks on participation in a public forum. Communication Research,

26, 743–774. doi: 10.1177/009365099026006005.

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather:

Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.

Mouw, T. (2006). Estimating the causal effect of social capital: A review of recent

research. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 79–102. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.

32.061604.123150.

Murphy, J. (2008, March 17). Our situation differs from Okinawa. Pacific Daily

News, 14.

Mutz, D. C. (2002). The consequences of cross-cutting networks for political partici-

pation. American Journal of Political Science, 46, 838–855.

Neuwirth, K., Frederick, E., & Mayo, C. (2007). The spiral of silence and fear of

isolation. Journal of Communication, 57, 450–468. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-2466.

2007.00352.x.

Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. Journal

of Communication, 24, 43–51.

Oshagan, H. (1996). Reference group influence on opinion expression. International

Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 335–354. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/8.4.335.

Perkins, D. D., Brown, B. B., & Taylor, R. B. (1996). The ecology of empowerment:

Predicting participation in community organizations. Journal of Social Issues, 52,

85–110.

Perez, M. P. (2002). Pacific identities beyond racial formations: The case of Chamorro

ambivalence and flux. Social Identities, 8, 457–479.

Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology.

Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1996.tb01363.x.

Price, V., Cappella, J., & Nir, L. (2002). Does disagreement contribute to more

deliberative opinion? Political Communication, 19, 95–112. doi: 10.1080/

105846002317246506.

Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.

New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Putnam, R. D. (1995). Tuning in, tuning out: The strange disappearance of social

capital in America. Political Science and Politics, 28, 664–683.

S O C I A L C A P I T A L A N D T H E S P I R A L O F S I L E N C E 343

Page 20: Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence Francis Dalisay ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/Dalisay.IJPOR.pdf · the key proposition of the spiral of silence and

Reiss, A. J., Jr. (1951). Delinquency as the failure of persona and social controls.

American Sociological Review, 16, 196–207.

Rogers, R. F. (1995). Destiny’s landfall: A history of Guam. Honolulu, HI: University

of Hawaii Press.

Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing

social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774–802.

Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent

crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924. doi: 10.1126/

science.277.5328.918.

Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Deliberation or dispute? An exploratory study examining

dimensions of public opinion expression. International Journal of Public Opinion

Research, 11, 25–58. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/11.1.25.

Scheufele, A. D., & Eveland, W. P. (2000). Perceptions of ‘public opinion’ and

‘public’ opinion expression. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 13,

25–44. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/13.1.25.

Scheufele, D. A., & Moy., P. (2000). Twenty-five years of spiral of silence: A con-

ceptual review and empirical outlook. International Journal of Public Opinion

Research, 12, 3–28. doi: 10.1093/ijpor/12.1.3.

Scheufele, D. A., Nisbet, M. C., Brossard, D., & Nisbet, E. C. (2004). Social struc-

ture and citizenship: Examining the impacts of social setting, network heterogen-

eity, and informational variables on political participation. Political Communication,

21, 315–338. doi: 10.1080/10584600490481389.

Shah, D. V. (1998). Civic engagement, interpersonal trust, and television use: An

individual level assessment of social capital. Political Psychology, 19, 469–496. doi:

10.1111/1062-895x.00114.

Shah, D. V., Kwak, N., & Holbert, R. L. (2001). ‘‘Connecting’’ and ‘‘disconnecting’’

with civic patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political

Communication, 18, 141–162. doi: 10.1080/105846001750322952.

Shamir, J. (1997). Speaking up and silencing out in face of a changing climate of

opinion. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 602–614. doi: 10.1177/

107769909707400313.

Shanahan, J., Glynn, C., & Hayes, A. (2007). The spiral of silence: A meta-analysis

and its impact. In R.W. Preiss, et al. (Eds.), Mass media effects: Advances through

meta-analysis (pp. 415–427). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Swaroop, S., & Morenoff, J. D. (2006). Building community: The neighborhood

context of social organization. Social Forces, 84, 1665–1695. doi: 10.1353/

sof.2006.0058.

Tamondong, D. (2009, March 19). Survey: Island favors buildup. Pacific Daily

News,1.

U. S. Census. (2004). Population and housing profile 2000: 2000 Census of population

and housing, Guam. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/

island/GUAMprofile.pdf.

Underwood, R. A. (1984). Language survival, the ideology of English and education

in Guam. Educational Research Quarterly, 8, 72–81.

Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

I N T E R N A T I O N A L J O U R N A L O F P U B L I C O P I N I O N R E S E A R C H344

Page 21: Social Capital and the Spiral of Silence Francis Dalisay ...socialsciences.people.hawaii.edu/publications_lib/Dalisay.IJPOR.pdf · the key proposition of the spiral of silence and

Veysey, B. M., & Messner, S. F. (1999). Further testing of social disorganization

theory: An elaboration of Sampson and Grove’s ‘‘community structure and crime’’.

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36, 156–174. doi: 10.1177/

0022427899036002002.

Walsh, K. C. (2003). Talking about politics: Informal groups and social identity in

American Life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Wilkins, K. G. (2000). The role of media in public disengagement from political life.

Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 44, 569–580. doi: 10.1207/

s15506878jobem4404_3.

Wojcieszak, M. E., Baek, Y. M., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2010). Deliberative and

participatory democracy? Ideological strength and the processes leading from dem-

ocracy to political engagement. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 22,

154–180. doi:10.1093/ijpor/edp050.

Biographical Notes

Francis Dalisay (PhD, Washington State University) is an Associate Lecturer at the

School of Communication at Cleveland State University. His research interests

include social- and individual-level communication processes and effects in interna-

tional and intercultural contexts.

Jay D. Hmielowski (PhD, The Ohio State University) is Assistant Professor in the

Department of Communication at The University of Arizona. His research interests

include the study of science communication, with interest in how specific message

factors generate attitudinal ambivalence, and how ambivalence affects information

processing, information seeking and political engagement.

Matthew James Kushin (PhD, Washington State University) is an Assistant Professor

in the Department of Communication at Shepherd University. His research interests

include political campaigns, civic and political engagement, online media, and social

media.

Masahiro Yamamoto (PhD, Washington State University) is an Assistant Professor in

the Communication Studies Department at the University of Wisconsin – La Crosse.

His research interests include mass media and community social organization, public

health, and new media and politics.

S O C I A L C A P I T A L A N D T H E S P I R A L O F S I L E N C E 345