Facebookâ€™s Spiral of Silence and Participation:
The Role of Political Expression on Facebook
and Partisan Strength in Political Participation
Mihee Kim, PhD
This study investigated how Facebookâ€™s spiral of silence influences political participation. For doing so, this
study focused on the roles of politically expressive activities on Facebook and individualsâ€™ levels of partisan
strength. An online survey (N = 277) was conducted with Facebook users. Results showed that a perceived
hostile opinion climate on Facebook was negatively associated with political expression on Facebook, which, in
turn, was positively related with political participation. This indirect relationship was conditioned by the degree
of Facebook usersâ€™ partisan strength. Those with weak or moderate levels of partisan strength were less likely to
express their minority views, which led to decrease their political participation in the real world. Such indirect
relationship was not the case for those with high levels of partisan strength. Theoretical and political implications of these findings were discussed.
Keywords: Facebook, spiral of silence, political expression, political participation, partisan strength
Individuals not only get political information but also
engage in politically expressive behaviors on social networking sites (SNS) such as Facebook and Twitter.1,2 Opinion expression on SNS has been explained by the spiral of
silence theory, which posits that those who see their opinions
to be in the minority will be less likely to express their
opinion in public.3 Previous studies have shown that those
who perceive a hostile climate of opinion on SNS are unlikely
to express their opinion on SNS.4â€“9 However, previous
studies have not fully addressed how Facebookâ€™s spiral of
silence influences political participation in the real world.
This study fills a void by testing a model that incorporates
Facebook usersâ€™ perceived opinion climate and politically
expressive activities, and their actual political participation.
In addition, this study extends the literature by investigating a
moderating role of partisan strength in the relationship between perceived opinion climates and political expression on
Facebook, which contributes to identifying a specific condition for a spiral of silence on Facebook and its effects on
actual political participation.
Spiral of silence and cross-cutting networks
According to the spiral of silence theory,3 individualsâ€™
perceptions of public opinion influence their willingness to
speak out. People estimate public opinion by closely monitoring social environments such as mass media.10 When they
think that the majority does not support their own points of
views, they are reluctant to express their opinion in public
because of a fear of social isolation.11 As a result, the majority view becomes louder over time, whereas the minority
view increasingly spirals to silence.12,13
As people increasingly depend on the Internet to seek
information and monitor othersâ€™ opinion, scholarly attention
is given to examine the spiral of silence phenomenon in
online environments. Research has shown that those who
perceive opinion climate to be hostile or incongruent are less
likely to provide their opinion in online forums,14,15 chat
rooms,16 and online review sites.17 The spiral of silence is
also observed in social networking platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.4â€“9 For example, Gearhart and Zhang found
that those who encounter agreeable political content on SNS
are more likely to speak out, while those who encounter
disagreeable content on SNS are less likely to voice their
opinion.6 As the spiral of silence theory posits, the fear of
isolation on Facebook or Twitter networks appears to prevent
individuals from expressing seemingly unpopular opinions.6
The process of the spiral of silence on Facebook seems to
closely align with the effects of cross-cutting networks. Facebook allows users to interact with a lot of â€˜â€˜Facebook
friendsâ€™â€™ from various walks of life.18 Facebook networks
include not only like-minded friends or family but also
Department of Journalism and Mass Communication, Sungkyunkwan University, Seoul, South Korea.
CYBERPSYCHOLOGY, BEHAVIOR, AND SOCIAL NETWORKING
Volume 19, Number 12, 2016
Âª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
acquaintances who may have politically different opinions.
Therefore, when people have a greater number of friends on
Facebook, they are more likely to be exposed to cross-cutting
perspectives.9 How cross-cutting networks in offline settings
influence political participation has been the subject of numerous studies of political behaviors such as voting.19 For
example, Mutz found that those who had cross-cutting social
or political networks in offline environments refrained from
participating in politics to protect their social relationship.20
Results suggest that exposure to political disagreement engenders ambivalent political views of those with high levels
of conflict avoidance, which is deterrent to political involvement. Given that Facebook users tend to communicate
with others who they already know rather than strangers,21
they may be more likely to avoid any conflicts that potentially hurt existing relationships. Therefore, those who perceive opinion distributions on Facebook to be hostile or
incongruent may be less likely to engage in political controversy on their Facebook network for maintaining interpersonal relationships. Based on previous studies on the
spiral of silence and cross-cutting networks, the present study
proposes the following hypothesis:
H1: Perceived hostile opinion climate on Facebook will be
negatively associated with political expression on Facebook.
Political expression on Facebook
and political participation
A growing body of research has provided empirical evidence that politically expressive activities on Facebook are
strongly associated with traditional political participations
such as participating in a protest, signing a petition, and
contributing money to a political campaign.22â€“25 Politically
expressive activities on Facebook may promote political
participation through three pathways such as expectation
effects, composition effects, and message release effects.26
Facebook users who have willingness to voice their opinions
on Facebook may give more attention to or carefully process
related messages posted by others.26 When composing a
message or comment on Facebook, they are likely to make
logical connections of ideas in mind and reflect their views or
attitudes.27 Message release on Facebook may create a
commitment to justify their expressed views28 and a feeling
that their voice has been heard on Facebook networks.26 This
overall process of political expression on Facebook may
contribute to increasing the expresserâ€™s political knowledge
and political efficacy, which may enhance the cognitive and
attitudinal base for oneâ€™s political actions in offline settings.29 The treatment of politically expressive activities on
Facebook as an antecedent to physical participations is also
consistent with prior works on the mobilizing potential of
SNS in recent social movements such as Arab Spring Revolution.30,31 Taken together, it is arguable that politically
expressive actions on Facebook can â€˜â€˜spillâ€™â€™ over to the real
world.24 This discussion leads to the following hypothesis:
H2: Political expression on Facebook will be positively
associated with political participation.
Facebook political expression as a mediator
According to the communication mediation model,32,33 exposure to mass media fosters interpersonal communication such
as political talks, which in turn promotes political participation.
Extending the original model, Shah et al.,34 by using penal data,
provided evidence that information seeking via mass media
drives political expression online or offline, which facilitates
civic participation. This causal direction showed the best fit
compared to alternative causal directions. Subsequent studies
have confirmed the mediating role of online political expression.
For example, Lee35 showed that politically expressive activities
via web-based technologies such as e-mail and message boards
positively mediated the relationship between late-night comedy
viewing and political participation. Shah et al.36 also demonstrated that interactive political messaging in a chat room or
online forum played a mediating role in the relationship between
political advertising exposure and political participation.
In a same vein, informational use of Internet was found to
be related to politically expressive behaviors on online domains, which results in offline political participation indirectly through mobilization efforts.24 Moreover, a panel
study showed that SNS use for news indirectly influenced
political participation through politically expressive activities on SNS.37 The causal flow from informational use of
SNS to participation was stronger than the reverse causal
ordering. Based on prior research on the communication
mediation model, this study predicts that political expression
on Facebook will mediate the relationship between perceived
opinion climate on Facebook and offline political participation.
H3: Political expression on Facebook will mediate the relationship between perceived opinion climate on Facebook
and political participation.
Partisan strength as a moderator
According to the spiral of silence theory,3 â€˜â€˜hard coreâ€™â€™
individuals speak out in public without considering opinion
climate. Because the hard core individuals have strong
opinions, they are not afraid of speaking out even if they
perceive themselves to be a minority.38 The idea of the hard
core was empirically tested. For example, McDonald et al.39
conceptualized the hard core as those who have unchangeable party/candidate preferences in the context of a presidential election. The spiral of silence was found only among
the non-hardcore (i.e., changeable) individuals. In a similar
vein, attitude strength was found to moderate the spiral of
silence effects.40 The spiral of silence was manifest only
among those who hold their attitudes with low or moderate
certainty. Those with high-attitude certainty were not reluctant to express politically minority opinions.
As mentioned above, exposure to cross-cutting perspectives
can reduce political participation by producing attitudinal
ambivalence.20 However, everyone does not experience the
attitudinal ambivalence when encountering dissimilar views.
Compared to those with strong opinions, those with less firmly
held views are more likely to experience the attitudinal ambivalence.35 Therefore, exposure to cross-cutting views on
Facebook may have detrimental effects on political expression
only among newcomers in politics. Taken together, it is predicted that the hypothesized relationship between perceived
opinion climates and political expression on Facebook will be
contingent on an individualâ€™s partisan strength. Specifically,
for those with high levels of partisan strength, hostile opinion
climates on Facebook may not influence their political expression on Facebook. In contrast, for those with low levels of
FACEBOOKâ€™S SPIRAL OF SILENCE 697
partisan strength, hostile opinion climates on Facebook may
stifle their willingness to voice their opinions on Facebook.
Thus, this study proposes the following hypothesis:
H4: Partisan strength will moderate the relationship
between perceived hostile opinion climate and political
expression on Facebook.
Finally, if H3 and H4 are supported by the data, this
suggests that hostile opinion climates on Facebook will influence Facebook usersâ€™ political participation indirectly
through their politically expressive behaviors on Facebook.
However, this indirect effect will vary depending on an individualâ€™s partisan strength. This leads the last hypothesis:
H5: Partisan strength will moderate the indirect relationship between perceived hostile opinion climate on Facebook
and political participation through political expression on
Materials and Methods
An online survey was conducted using a panel sample of a
survey company based in South Korea. This company recruited Facebook users from its 1 million panel members.
Initially, a total of 470 Facebook users were recruited for this
study. For measuring clear perceptions of opinion climate
(i.e., hostile or congenial with participantsâ€™ political position),
Facebook users who indicated to hold a neutral political position were excluded. Finally, a total of 277 Facebook users
(142 men, 135 women; age: M = 39.63, SD = 11.7) participated in this survey. Participantsâ€™ education level was measured by a scale ranging from 1 (grade school) to 6 (graduate
school) (M = 4.69, SD = 0.82; Mdn = college degree). For income, participants chose one of six categories of total annual
income (M = 2.70, SD = 1.28; Mdn = $27,000 to $45,000).
Partisan strength. Partisanship was first measured with a
single item: â€˜â€˜How would you describe your political position?â€™â€™
(1 = strongly conservative, 7 = strongly liberal) (M = 4.27,
SD = 1.43). As mentioned above, because those with a neutral
political position were excluded, final data set did not include
score 4 (the midpoint) from the 7-point scale. Responses to the
item were folded to a 3-point scale to measure partisan strength
(M = 1.98, SD = 0.68) with a higher number indicating stronger
Perceived opinion climate on Facebook. Perceived opinion climate on Facebook was measured with two items: â€˜â€˜How
would you describe political opinion or political content your
friends post on Facebook?â€™â€™ â€˜â€˜How do you see the political views
of your Facebook friends?â€™â€™ (1 = strongly in favor of conservative, 7 = strongly in favor of liberal). Liberal participantsâ€™ scores
of each item were reversed to measure hostile opinion climate.
The mean of recoded scores of two items was taken as a measure
of perceived opinion climates (a = 0.73, M = 3.54, SD = 1.04).
The larger numbers indicate more hostile opinion climate.
Political expression on Facebook. Political expression
on Facebook was gauged with seven items adapted from
prior research.37 Participants were asked to indicate how
often they engage in seven different types of politically expressive behaviors on Facebook such as â€˜â€˜posting my opinions related to politics or campaigning,â€™â€™ and â€˜â€˜posting or
sharing news, photos, videos, or audio content about politics
or campaigning.â€™â€™ The items were rated on a 7-point scale
(1 = never, 7 = very often). All responses were averaged to
create an index of political expression on Facebook (a = 0.96,
M = 2.65, SD = 1.45).
Political participation. Drawing on existing research on
SNS usersâ€™ offline political participation,37,41 participants were
asked how often during the past 12 months they had engaged or
not in eight different political activities, including â€˜â€˜attending a
public hearing or town hall meeting,â€™â€™ and â€˜â€˜participating in any
demonstrations, protests, or marches.â€™â€™ Eight items were rated
on a 7-point scale (1 = never, 7 = very often). An index of political participation was produced by averaging responses to
each statement (a = 0.97, M = 2.31, SD = 1.36).
Control variables. Control variables included age, gender, the number of Facebook friends, and the amount and
intensity of Facebook use. The amount of Facebook use was
measured with a single item: â€˜â€˜Approximately, how much
time per day have you spent using Facebook?â€™â€™ The intensity
of Facebook use was measured using the Facebook intensity
scale42 (a = 0.96, M = 3.32, SD = 1.63).
This study tested the proposed hypotheses with the SPSS
PROCESS macro.43 All analyses computed 95 percent biascorrected confidence interval (CI) based on 10,000 bootstrapping samples.
A mediation analysis was conducted to test H1â€“H3. In
consistent with H1, perceived hostile opinion climate was
negatively associated with political expression on Facebook
(b = -0.25, SE = 0.08, t = -3.19, p < 0.01). Supporting H2,
results showed a significant positive relationship between
Hostile opinion climates on Facebook
-1.03 .00 1.03
Political expression on Facebook
FIG. 1. Partisan strength as a moderator of the relationship between hostile opinion climates and political expression on Facebook.
political expression on Facebook and political participation
(b = 0.72, SE = 0.05, t = 13.60, p < 0.001).
H3 proposed that political expression on Facebook will
mediate the relationship between perceived hostile opinion
climate on Facebook and political participation. The bootstrap
results of the mediation test indicated that this mediated effect
was negative and statistically significant (b = -0.18, Boot
SE= 0.06, 95 percent CI [-0.308, -0.081]). A Sobel indirect
effect test also confirmed the significance of the mediating role
of political expression on Facebook (Sobel Z = -3.10, p < 0.01).
The significant direct effect of the perceived hostile opinion
climate on political participation was not found (b = 0.01,
SE= 0.06, t = 0.12, p = 0.91). Thus, the data supported H3.
A moderation analysis was conducted to test H4 predicting
the moderating role of partisan strength in the relationship
between perceived hostile opinion climate and political expression on Facebook. Results showed a significant interaction effect between perceived hostile opinion climate on
Facebook and partisan strength on the political expression
(b = 0.26, SE = 0.11, t = 2.49, p < 0.05). Figure 1 shows that a
negative relationship between perceived hostile opinion climate and political expression on Facebook was significant
among those who have low (b = -0.40, SE = 0.10, t = -4.16,
p < 0.001) and average levels (b = -0.22, SE = 0.07, t = -3.09,
p < 0.01) of partisan strength. This negative association was
not significant among those who have high levels of partisan
strength (b = -0.04, SE = 0.11, t = -0.42, p = 0.67).
H5 predicted that partisan strength will moderate the indirect
relationship between perceived hostile opinion climate on Facebook and political participation through political expression
on Facebook. As Figure 2 shows, a moderated mediation model
was specified to integrate the mediation and moderation tests
(Table 1). Consistent with H5, a conditional indirect relationship was found. For those who have low (b = -0.29, Boot
SE= 0.07, 95 percent CI [-0.432, -0.128]) and average (b =
-0.16, Boot SE= 0.05, 95 percent CI [-0.267, -0.063]) levels of
partisan strength, a negative indirect relationship between perceived hostile opinion climate on Facebook and political participation was statistically significant. However, this negative
indirect relationship was not significant among people with
high levels of partisan strength (b = -0.03, Boot SE= 0.07, 95
percent CI [-0.182, 0.106]).
This study investigated how Facebook usersâ€™ perceived
hostile opinion climate on Facebook influences their political
FIG. 2. Moderated mediation effects: indirect relationship between hostile
opinion climates on Facebook and political participation through political
expression on Facebook that
is conditional upon partisan
strength (path coefficients
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01,
***p < 0.001).
Table 1. Regression Results Predicting Political Expression on Facebook and Political Participation
Political expression on Facebook Political participation
b (SE) b (SE)
Age 0.01 (0.01) -0.004 (0.005)
Gender -0.22 (0.14) -0.03 (0.10)
Facebook friends 0.0002 (0.0002) 0.0002 (0.0001)
Amount of Facebook use 0.0004 (0.05) -0.007 (0.03)
Intensity of Facebook use 0.57 (0.06)*** 0.02 (0.05)
Hostile opinion climate on Facebook -0.22 (0.07)** 0.01 (0.06)
Partisan strength 0.25 (0.10)*
Hostile opinion climate Â· Partisan strength 0.26 (0.11)*
Political expression on Facebook 0.72 (0.05)***
Constant 0.77 (0.32) 0.53 (0.29)
R2 0.44 0.61
N 277 277
b: Unstandardized regression coefficients. Gender: 0 = Male, 1 = Female. Hostile opinion climate on Facebook and partisan strength were
mean centered before computing the interaction term.
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.
FACEBOOKâ€™S SPIRAL OF SILENCE 699
participation. For doing so, this study focused on the roles of
political expression on Facebook and individualsâ€™ levels of
partisanship. This study found that perceived hostile opinion
climate on Facebook was negatively associated with political
expression on Facebook, which, in turn, was positively related with political participation. This indirect relationship
was conditioned by the degree of Facebook usersâ€™ partisan
strength. Those with weak or moderate levels of partisan
strength were less likely to express their minority views,
which led to decrease their political participation in the real
world. Such indirect relationship was not the case for those
with high levels of partisan strength.
The findings of this study have several theoretical and
political implications. First, this study extends previous research on the relationship between SNS use and political
participation44â€“46 by demonstrating that individualsâ€™ perceptions of opinion climates on SNS play a role in predicting
their actual participation. Prior research has shown that informational use of SNS fosters opinion expression on SNS,
which promotes offline political participation.37 As the spiral
of silence theory posits, SNS usersâ€™ opinion expression may
depend on their perceptions of opinion distribution on
SNS.4â€“9 Therefore, informational use of SNS could not be
enough for explaining politically expressive activities on
SNS and political participation. This study discerned between different perceptions of opinion climate on Facebook
(congenial or hostile), which contributes to a deeper understanding of the nuanced relationship between SNS use and
Second, this study provides insights into individual differences in the spiral of silence process on Facebook. Several
studies have noted that such factors as issue importance have
a liberating effect on opinion expression on SNS.5,6 However, very little research has directly tested the notion of
â€˜â€˜hard coreâ€™â€™ individuals in the context of Facebook. This
study adds to the spiral of silence literature by directly examining whether Facebook usersâ€™ partisan strength moderates the relationship between their perceived opinion
climate and opinion expression on Facebook. Consistent
with offline research on the spiral of silence,39,40 there is a
spiral of silence only for Facebook users with low or moderate levels of partisan strength. Furthermore, this study
suggests that perceived opinion climates on Facebook only
determine the variance of offline political activities of those
with low or moderate partisan strength. For those with strong
partisanship, perceived opinion climates on Facebook do not
have any impact on physical participation.
Third, this study provides important insights into the political functions of Facebook by shedding some light on the
question of whether network characteristics of Facebook
encourage or discourage political participation. Those who
have heterogonous networks on Facebook are more likely to
encounter cross-cutting political views on Facebook.47 The
network heterogeneity on Facebook may arguably contribute
to the democratic process by providing citizens with opportunities for considering different opinions and increasing
levels of political tolerance.48 However, this study suggests
that the optimistic prediction should be reconsidered by
showing that Facebook network heterogeneity may be detrimental for opinion expression and political participation
especially among those with low levels of partisan strength.
However, the findings of this study can be interpreted in
different ways. Those who have homogenous networks on
Facebook are more likely to view congruent political opinions on Facebook. This study shows that those who perceive
opinion climates on Facebook to be congenial are more engaged in political expression on Facebook, which, in turn,
increases their political participation. Facebook users can be
selectively exposed to political content supporting their own
position by following ideologically congruent media or
friending those with similar viewpoints. The results of this
study suggest that if Facebook users are selectively exposed
to news content or postings with attitudinal congruence, no
one may feel to be a minority on Facebook. Selective exposure to congruent political content on Facebook may lead
Facebook users who support different political camps (liberals or conservatives) to perceive opinion distributions on
Facebook to be congenial or supportive, which may increase
voices from both sides of the political spectrum on Facebook
and promote political engagement in the real world.
This study has several limitations to note. First, this study
assumed the causal flow that goes from political expression
on Facebook to political participation. However, this study
cannot exclude the possibility that political engagement in
general may promote opinion expression on Facebook.
Those who frequently participate in offline political activities may use Facebook as a channel for distributing their
opinion and mobilizing others in their activities. It is also
plausible that online political expression and offline political participation influence each other. Actually, a recent
meta-analysis questions the casual effects of SNS use on
participation.49 Therefore, given that this study used crosssectional survey data, the causal direction should be interpreted with caution. Future studies should conduct longitudinal analyses to shed more light on the causality. Second,
this study did not measure Facebook usersâ€™ perceptions of
opinion climate, opinion expression, and political participation in the context of a specific issue. The void of topical
issue may challenge the results. Third, given that people,
especially in South Korea, increasingly have political conversations via mobile messenger applications such as Kakao
Talk, future studies need to examine the use of mobile
messengers in political contexts. Last, this study only
considered Facebook users with partisanship. Future study
should do well to investigate how Facebook use influences
political interest or political participation of those with no
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.
1. Pew Research Center (2015). The evolving role of news on
Twitter and Facebook. www.journalism.org/2015/07/14/
the-evolving-role-of-news-on-twitter-and-facebook/ (accessed June 28, 2016).
2. Kushin MJ, Yamamoto M. Did social media really matter?
College studentsâ€™ use of online media and political decision
making in the 2008 election. Mass Communication and
Society 2010; 13:608â€“630.
3. Noelle-Neumann E. The spiral of silence a theory of public
opinion. Journal of Communication 1974; 24:43â€“51.
4. Fox J, Warber KM. Queer identity management and political self-expression on social networking sites: a co700 KIM
cultural approach to the spiral of silence. Journal of Communication 2015; 65:79â€“100.
5. Gearhart S, Zhang W. Gay bullying and online opinion
expression: testing spiral of silence in the social media
environment. Social Science Computer Review 2014; 32:
6. Gearhart S, Zhang W. â€˜â€˜Was it something I said?â€™â€™ â€˜â€˜No, it
was something you posted!â€™â€™ A study of the spiral of silence
theory in social media contexts. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2015; 18:208â€“213.
7. Elizabeth S. Under surveillance: examining Facebooks
spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA internet
monitoring. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 2016; 93:296â€“311.
8. Miyata K, Yamamoto H, Ogawa Y. What affects the spiral
of silence and the hard core on Twitter? An analysis of the
nuclear power issue in Japan. American Behavioral Scientist 2015; 59:1129â€“1141.
9. Jang SM, Lee H, Jin PY. The more friends, the less political
talk? Predictors of Facebook discussions among college
students. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2014; 17:271â€“275.
10. Katz E. (1983) Publicity and pluralistic ignorance: notes on
the spiral of silence. In Whitney CD, Wartella E, Windahl
S, eds. Mass communication review yearbook. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 89â€“100.
11. Hayes AF, Matthes J, Eveland WP. Stimulating the quasistatistical organ: fear of social isolation motivates the quest
for knowledge of the opinion climate. Communication
Research 2011; 40:439â€“462.
12. Matthes J. Observing the â€˜â€˜spiralâ€™â€™ in the spiral of silence.
International Journal of Public Opinion Research 2015;
13. Glynn CJ, Hayes AF, Shanahan J. Perceived support for
oneâ€™s opinions and willingness to speak out: a metaanalysis of survey studies on the â€˜â€˜spiral of silence.â€™â€™ Public
Opinion Quarterly 1997; 61:452â€“463.
14. Kim SH, Kim H, Oh SH. Talking about Genetically
Modified (GM) foods in South Korea: the role of the Internet in the spiral of silence process. Mass Communication
and Society 2014; 17:713â€“732.
15. Yun GW, Park SY. Selective posting: willingness to a post
a message online. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2011; 16:201â€“227.
16. Ho SS, McLeod DM. Social-psychological influences on
opinion expression in face-to-face and computer-mediated
communication. Communication Research 2008; 35:190â€“
17. Askay DA. Silence in the crowd: the spiral of silence
contributing to the positive bias of opinions in an online
review system. New Media and Society 2015; 17:1811â€“
18. Kuo FY, Tseng CY, Tseng FC, et al. A study of social
information control affordances and gender difference in
Facebook self-presentation. Cyberpsychology, Behavior,
and Social Networking 2013; 16:635â€“644.
19. Campbell A, Converse PE, Miller WE, et al. (1960) The
American voter. New York: Wiley.
20. Mutz D. The consequences of cross-cutting networks for
political participation. American Journal of Political Science 2002; 46:838â€“855.
21. Boyd D, Ellison N. Social network sites: definition, history,
and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2007; 13:210â€“230.
22. Macafee T, Simone JJ. Killing the bill online? Pathways to
young peopleâ€™s protest engagement via social media. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking 2012;
23. Vitak J, Zube P, Smock A, et al. Itâ€™s complicated: Facebook
usersâ€™ political participation in the 2008 election. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking 2011; 14:107â€“
24. Rojas H, Puig-I-Abril E. Mobilizers mobilized: information, expression, mobilization and participation in the digital age. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication
25. Bode L, Vraga EK, Borah P, et al. A new space for political
behavior: political social networking and its democratic
consequences. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 2014; 19:414â€“429.
26. Pingree RJ. How messages affect their senders: a more
general model of message effects and implications for deliberation. Communication Theory 2007; 17:439â€“461.
27. Bem DJ. Self-perception: an alternative interpretation of
cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review
28. Tetlock PE, Skitka L, Boettger R. Social and cognitive
strategies for coping with accountability: conformity, complexity, and bolstering. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 1989; 57:632â€“640.
29. Jung N, Kim Y, Gil de ZuÂ´nËœiga H. The mediating role of
knowledge and efficacy in the effects of communication on
political participation. Mass Communication and Society
30. Harlow S, Harp D. Collective action on the web. Information, Communication and Society 2012; 15:196â€“216.
31. Juris JS. Reflections on #Occupy Everywhere: social media, public space, and emerging logics of aggregation.
American Ethnologist 2012; 39:259â€“279.
32. McLeod JM, Zubric J, Keum H, et al. (2001). Reflecting
and connecting: testing a communication mediation model
of civic participation. Paper presented to the Association
for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication
Annual Meeting, Washington, DC.
33. Sotirovic M, McLeod JM. Values, communication behavior, and political participation. Political Communication
34. Shah DV, Cho J, Eveland WP, et al. Information and expression in a digital age modeling Internet effects on civic
participation. Communication Research 2005; 32:531â€“565.
35. Lee H. Communication mediation model of Late-Night Comedy: the mediating role of structural features of interpersonal
talk between comedy viewing and political participation.
Mass Communication and Society 2012; 15:647â€“671.
36. Shah DV, Cho J, Nah S, et al. Campaign ads, online
messaging, and participation: extending the communication
mediation model. Journal of Communication 2007; 57:
37. Gil de ZuÂ´nËœiga H, Molyneux L, Zheng P. Social media, political expression, and political participation: panel analysis
of lagged and concurrent relationships. Journal of Communication 2014; 64:612â€“634.
38. Glynn CJ, McLeod JM. Public opinion du jour: an examination of the spiral of silence. Public Opinion Quarterly
39. McDonald DG, Glynn CJ, Kim SH, et al. The spiral of
silence in the 1948 presidential election. Communication
Research 2001; 28:139â€“155.
FACEBOOKâ€™S SPIRAL OF SILENCE 701
40. Matthes J, Morrison KR, Schemer CA. Spiral of silence for
some: attitude certainty and the expression of political
minority opinions. Communication Research 2010; 37:
41. Hyn KD, Kim J. Differential and interactive influences on
political participation by different types of news activities
and political conversation through social media. Computers
in Human Behavior 2015; 45:328â€“334.
42. Ellison NB, Steinfield C, Lampe C. The benefits of Facebook â€˜â€˜friendsâ€™â€™: social capital and college students use of
online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication 2007; 12:1143â€“1168.
43. Hayes AF. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation,
and conditional process analysis: a regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
44. Yamamoto M, Kushin MJ, Dalisay F. Social media and
mobiles as political mobilization forces for young adults:
examining the moderating role of online political expression in political participation. New Media and Society
45. Yonghwan K, Shih-Hsien H, Gil de ZuÂ´nËœiga H. Influence of
Social Media Use on Discussion Network Heterogeneity
and Civic Engagement: The Moderating Role of Personality Traits Journal of Communication 2013; 63:498â€“516.
46. Gil de ZuÂ´nËœiga H, Jung N, Valenzuela S. Social media use
for news and individualsâ€™ social capital, civic engagement
and political participation. Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication 2012; 17:319â€“336.
47. Kim Y. The contribution of social network sites to exposure
to political difference: the relationships among SNSs, online political messaging, and exposure to cross-cutting
perspectives. Computers in Human Behavior 2011; 27:971â€“
48. Mutz DC. Cross-cutting social networks: testing democratic theory in practice. American Political Science Review 2002; 96:111â€“126.
49. Boulianne S. Social media use and participation: a metaanalysis of current research. Information, Communication
and Society 2015; 18:524â€“538.
Address correspondence to:
Dr. Mihee Kim
Department of Journalism and Mass Communication
E-mail: [email protected]
Copyright of CyberPsychology, Behavior & Social Networking is the property of Mary Ann
Liebert, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.
Get Professional Assignment Help Cheaply
Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?
Whichever your reason is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.
Why Choose Our Academic Writing Service?
- Plagiarism free papers
- Timely delivery
- Any deadline
- Skilled, Experienced Native English Writers
- Subject-relevant academic writer
- Adherence to paper instructions
- Ability to tackle bulk assignments
- Reasonable prices
- 24/7 Customer Support
- Get superb grades consistently
Online Academic Help With Different Subjects
Students barely have time to read. We got you! Have your literature essay or book review written without having the hassle of reading the book. You can get your literature paper custom-written for you by our literature specialists.
Do you struggle with finance? No need to torture yourself if finance is not your cup of tea. You can order your finance paper from our academic writing service and get 100% original work from competent finance experts.
While psychology may be an interesting subject, you may lack sufficient time to handle your assignments. Don’t despair; by using our academic writing service, you can be assured of perfect grades. Moreover, your grades will be consistent.
Engineering is quite a demanding subject. Students face a lot of pressure and barely have enough time to do what they love to do. Our academic writing service got you covered! Our engineering specialists follow the paper instructions and ensure timely delivery of the paper.
In the nursing course, you may have difficulties with literature reviews, annotated bibliographies, critical essays, and other assignments. Our nursing assignment writers will offer you professional nursing paper help at low prices.
Truth be told, sociology papers can be quite exhausting. Our academic writing service relieves you of fatigue, pressure, and stress. You can relax and have peace of mind as our academic writers handle your sociology assignment.
We take pride in having some of the best business writers in the industry. Our business writers have a lot of experience in the field. They are reliable, and you can be assured of a high-grade paper. They are able to handle business papers of any subject, length, deadline, and difficulty!
We boast of having some of the most experienced statistics experts in the industry. Our statistics experts have diverse skills, expertise, and knowledge to handle any kind of assignment. They have access to all kinds of software to get your assignment done.
Writing a law essay may prove to be an insurmountable obstacle, especially when you need to know the peculiarities of the legislative framework. Take advantage of our top-notch law specialists and get superb grades and 100% satisfaction.
What discipline/subjects do you deal in?
We have highlighted some of the most popular subjects we handle above. Those are just a tip of the iceberg. We deal in all academic disciplines since our writers are as diverse. They have been drawn from across all disciplines, and orders are assigned to those writers believed to be the best in the field. In a nutshell, there is no task we cannot handle; all you need to do is place your order with us. As long as your instructions are clear, just trust we shall deliver irrespective of the discipline.
Are your writers competent enough to handle my paper?
Our essay writers are graduates with bachelor's, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college degree. All our academic writers have a minimum of two years of academic writing. We have a stringent recruitment process to ensure that we get only the most competent essay writers in the industry. We also ensure that the writers are handsomely compensated for their value. The majority of our writers are native English speakers. As such, the fluency of language and grammar is impeccable.
What if I don’t like the paper?
There is a very low likelihood that you won’t like the paper.
- When assigning your order, we match the paper’s discipline with the writer’s field/specialization. Since all our writers are graduates, we match the paper’s subject with the field the writer studied. For instance, if it’s a nursing paper, only a nursing graduate and writer will handle it. Furthermore, all our writers have academic writing experience and top-notch research skills.
- We have a quality assurance that reviews the paper before it gets to you. As such, we ensure that you get a paper that meets the required standard and will most definitely make the grade.
In the event that you don’t like your paper:
- The writer will revise the paper up to your pleasing. You have unlimited revisions. You simply need to highlight what specifically you don’t like about the paper, and the writer will make the amendments. The paper will be revised until you are satisfied. Revisions are free of charge
- We will have a different writer write the paper from scratch.
- Last resort, if the above does not work, we will refund your money.
Will the professor find out I didn’t write the paper myself?
Not at all. All papers are written from scratch. There is no way your tutor or instructor will realize that you did not write the paper yourself. In fact, we recommend using our assignment help services for consistent results.
What if the paper is plagiarized?
We check all papers for plagiarism before we submit them. We use powerful plagiarism checking software such as SafeAssign, LopesWrite, and Turnitin. We also upload the plagiarism report so that you can review it. We understand that plagiarism is academic suicide. We would not take the risk of submitting plagiarized work and jeopardize your academic journey. Furthermore, we do not sell or use prewritten papers, and each paper is written from scratch.
When will I get my paper?
You determine when you get the paper by setting the deadline when placing the order. All papers are delivered within the deadline. We are well aware that we operate in a time-sensitive industry. As such, we have laid out strategies to ensure that the client receives the paper on time and they never miss the deadline. We understand that papers that are submitted late have some points deducted. We do not want you to miss any points due to late submission. We work on beating deadlines by huge margins in order to ensure that you have ample time to review the paper before you submit it.
Will anyone find out that I used your services?
We have a privacy and confidentiality policy that guides our work. We NEVER share any customer information with third parties. Noone will ever know that you used our assignment help services. It’s only between you and us. We are bound by our policies to protect the customer’s identity and information. All your information, such as your names, phone number, email, order information, and so on, are protected. We have robust security systems that ensure that your data is protected. Hacking our systems is close to impossible, and it has never happened.
How our Assignment Help Service Works
1. Place an order
You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.
2. Pay for the order
Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.
3. Track the progress
You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.
4. Download the paper
The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!