By adaptive - September 2nd, 2014

New research suggests that social media channels are not delivering the open debate that was expected

The topic under discussion will determine how much traction it receives across the social media space is the conclusion of new research from Pew Internet*. What the research called the ‘spiral of silence’ is revealed as a lack of willingness to take part in wider discussions when certain subjects are concerned. In this case the Edward Snowden about the U.S. government’s surveillance programs.

“It has been well documented since before the Internet that a ‘spiral of silence’ descends when people think their opinions are in the minority when compared to those around them – they don’t want to speak out if they think they hold unpopular views,” said Professor Keith Hampton, a key author of this study.

“This kind of self-censoring can mean that important information is never shared. Some had hoped that social media might provide new outlets that encourage more discussion and the exchange of a wider range of opinions. But we see the opposite – a spiral of silence exists online, too.

“If people did not think that their friends and followers in social media agreed with them, they were less likely to say they would state their views online. In addition, if they felt that they were in the minority opinion amongst those who follow them through social media, they were also less willing to join a discussion in in-person situations, such as gatherings of friends or co-workers. This raises the possibility that the spiral of silence spills over from online contexts to in-person contexts.”

“The traditional argument is that the spiral of silence results from a fear of being ostracized or criticized by others. One possible explanation is that social media users are more aware of the diversity of opinions around them – especially on an issue where there is divided opinion,” noted Lee Rainie of the Pew Research Center. “Because they use social media, they may know more about the depth of disagreement over the issue in their wide circle of contacts. This might make them hesitant to speak up either online or offline for fear of starting an argument, offending or even losing a friend.”

What this research highlights is that social media is not a space for uncontrolled discussion, but is governed by the checks and balances that people use when discussing any sensitive issue in other environments. This speaks volumes to corporations operating in sensitive marketplaces such as politics, finance and international business.

Pew Research

The key findings of the survey included:

People were less willing to discuss the Snowden-NSA story in social media than they were in person.

86% of Americans were willing to have an in-person conversation about the surveillance program, but just 42% of Facebook and Twitter users were willing to post about it on those platforms.

 

Social media did not provide an alternative discussion platform for those who were not willing to discuss the Snowden-NSA story.

Of the 14% of Americans unwilling to discuss the Snowden-NSA story in person with others, only 0.3% were willing to post about it on social media.

 

In both personal settings and online settings, people were more willing to share their views if they thought their audience agreed with them.

For instance, at work, those who felt their coworkers agreed with their opinion were about three times more likely to say they would join a workplace conversation about the Snowden-NSA situation.

 

Previous ‘spiral of silence’ findings as to people’s willingness to speak up in various settings also apply to social media users.

Those who use Facebook were more willing to share their views if they thought their followers agreed with them. If a person felt that people in their Facebook network agreed with their opinion about the Snowden-NSA issue, they were about twice as likely to join a discussion on Facebook about this issue.

 

Facebook and Twitter users were also less likely to share their opinions in many face-to-face settings. This was especially true if they did not feel that their Facebook friends or Twitter followers agreed with their point of view.

For instance, the average Facebook user (someone who uses the site a few times per day) was half as likely as other people to say they would be willing to voice their opinion with friends at a restaurant. If they felt that their online Facebook network agreed with their views on this issue, their willingness to speak out in a face-to-face discussion with friends was higher, although they were still only 0.74 times as likely to voice their opinion as other people.

Corporations of course want to evolve their use of social media and gain high levels of engagement. What the Pew Internet survey shows is that across social media networks, a level of self-censorship is in operation that directly influences the level and detail of certain discussions. For marketers, care needs to be taken when engaging with an audience when a sensitive issue is concerned.

 

*The report contains findings from a nationally representative survey of 1,801 American adults (ages 18+) conducted by the Pew Research Center and fielded August 7-September 16, 2013 by Princeton Research Associates International. It was conducted in English and Spanish on landline (N=901) and cell phones (N=900). The margin of error for the full sample is plus or minus 2.6 percentage points. Some 1,076 respondents are users of social networking sites and the margin of error for that subgroup is plus or minus 3.3 percentage points.

Image Source: Freedigitalphotos

Next Reads

The Corporate Social Media Summit San Francisco 2014

September 2014, San Francisco

Use social to get closer to your customer. The Corporate Social Media Summit is your one-stop-shop for all the latest social media insight and best practice.

Brochure Programme
comments powered by Disqus