Stoycheff, E. (2016). Under surveillance: Examining Facebook’s spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring.

From Digital Culture & Society

Stoycheff, E. (2016). Under surveillance: Examining Facebook’s spiral of silence effects in the wake of NSA Internet monitoring. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 93(2), 296-311.

Danielle Fenton

Under Surveillance: Examining Facebook’s Spiral of Silence Effects in the Wake of NSA Internet Monitoring, is a research paper by Elizabeth Stoycheff which explores the relationship between one’s perceived climate of opinion and willingness to voice opinions online. Stoycheff specifically focuses on the social media site Facebook and explores how one’s perception of surveillance online can result in a “chilling effect” in their willingness to publicly disclose political views. According to the researcher, this study seeks to contribute to the burgeoning body of spiral of silence in online environments by examining how discernments of government surveillance may influence the relationship between one’s perceived judgement and their inclination to express minority views (p.297). A key strength that sets Stoycheff’s paper apart from others is that it the first to reveal the potential silencing effects attributable to online surveillance (p.297). Scholars have failed to recognize the chilling effect in past studies, however, by using a subtle priming manipulation method in an internet survey, and a series of 7 Likert-type scales, the researcher is able to empirically document this online behaviour.

By applying theoretical and normative implications of “Spiral of Silence,” “Perceptions of Online Surveillance,” and “Justification of Online Surveillance,” Stoycheff provides readers with a framework of knowledge behind the objective of her study as well as her hypotheses. For example, the researcher utilizes Noelle-Neumann’s Spiral of Silence theory, introduced in 1974 for a contemporary study on online behaviour. Neumann’s theory “contends that individuals, motivated by fear of isolation, continuously monitor their environments to assess whether their beliefs align with or contradict majority opinions” (p.297). Stoycheff implements this behaviour to test exactly how individuals use online social networks; specifically, Facebook, to gauge public opinions which can be seen through the construction of her hypotheses. The researcher’s four hypotheses are clearly stated in this study, they include: H1: Perceived hostile opinion climate would be negatively associated with one’s willingness to speak out online. H2: When individuals are primed of government surveillance, they will be less likely to disclose political views in general. H3: Messages can activate certain mental constructs that are readily available in short-term memory and over-sampled when individuals need to form judgments. H4: When individuals perceive surveillance and believe it to be justified, they may be more likely to conform their opinions, by speaking out when they feel they are in the majority, and remaining silent when they are not (p.300-301).

Stoycheff strategically executed her testing of participants by self-administering an online survey platform to gauge the response of internet users when they were asked to examine a Facebook post regarding a national security issue: the U.S. decision to continue airstrikes against the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) (p.301). Another strength of the researcher’s study was the decision to maximize the external validity and quantity of participants by using a quota sampling technique to mimic basic demographic distributions such as sex, age, and education of the U.S. population (p.301). However, it can be said that the validity of the study is tainted by the researcher’s decision to accept Facebook commenting, sharing and liking as disclosures of opinion, as they do not involve specific commentary of publicly expressing one’s beliefs. The procedure to collect such data on users response to a climate of opinion involved the process of participants reviewing a fictional Facebook post about the U.S. airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq (which is provided in the researcher’s appendix). Stoycheff examined participants about their willingness to publicly express their opinions on the topic which was neither deemed good or bad to avoid creating a hostile or friendly climate of opinion (p.301). She also examined their perceptions of how other Americans felt about this topic and the extent to which they believed online surveillance justified (p.301).

Stoycheff’s study is strengthened as she executed control over a specific variable in order to determine the effects of surveillance. For example, the results of her findings conclude that the greater the distance between a participants’ opinion and perceived majority opinion, the less likely he/she was to speak out online (p.303). However, those who felt an impending terrorist attack was likely and self-reported high political interest were likely to speak out (p.303). The researcher summarizes her findings in her own words allowing for an easy understanding for those readers who are outside of the scientific scholar bubble, making this study inclusive for all. Stoycheff explains that when individuals think they’re being monitored and disapprove of such surveillance, they are equally as unlikely to voice opinions in friendly opinion climates as they are in hostile ones (p.305). The researcher also explains individuals will speak out when they are the majority and remain silent when they are not, especially when coupled with perceived surveillance and a belief that the surveillance is justified (p.305).