Principle 4: Overcome the Spiral of Silence (If You Believe It, Say It)
Those who view the belief in the realities of climate change as an unpopular position are less likely to share their science-consistent beliefs about it with others, which makes others who may agree less likely to voice their views as well. To overcome the “spiral of silence,” people should share their science-consistent climate views.
Developed by Elizabeth Noelle-Neumann (1974; 1993), the “spiral of silence” concept hypothesizes that an individual is less likely to express their opinion to friends, family, and peers when they perceive that the majority hold an opposed view. That is, for “fear of isolating oneself (not only fear of separation but also doubt about one’s own capacity for judgment)” (Noelle-Neumann 1974), an individual is more likely to keep silent in an environment where they perceive that their own views are controversial.
A meta-analysis of 66 studies assessing the strength of the relationship found a significant positive relationship between opinion climate and opinion expression. The largest silencing effect was found when “participants talk to their family, friends, or neighbors about obtrusive issues” (Matthes, Knoll, and von Sikorski 2018). The tendency to hold in unpopular opinions remains true online, where “encountering agreeable political content predicts speaking out, while encountering disagreeable postings stifles opinion expression” (Gearhart and Zhang 2015).
The challenge being addressed:
A recent study of a sample of over six thousand U.S. adults drawn from the Ipsos eNation Omnibus found that 80–90 percent of Americans under-estimate the prevalence of support for major climate change mitigation policies and climate concern (Sparkman, Geiger, and Weber 2022). According to a study conducted by researchers at Yale’s Program on Climate Change Communication, only 35 percent of American adults discuss global warming “occasionally”; the remaining 64 percent discuss the phenomenon “rarely or never” (Marlon et al. 2022). Climate advocates need to increase the likelihood that everyone in their sphere of influence is aware of their positions on climate-related matters.
The climate science:
Climate change is real and human caused.
Example 1: Actively engaging reporters and the media
Since this is an interpersonal phenomenon, effective examples are difficult to locate. But as we were writing this report, we observed an instance in which a climate scientist took issue with the sorts of visual images being used by mainstream media reports to illustrate stories about the existence of extreme climate change–driven heat.
In July 2022, J. Marshall Shepherd, Distinguished Professor of Geography and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Georgia and the former president of the American Meteorological Society, tweeted to his more than 65,000 followers, “Heatwaves should not be covered with kids eating ice cream or romping around in fountains. Cover extreme heat as a threat not a vacation. We don’t cover the approach of a hurricane as great potential kite flying weather” (Shepherd 2022b).
Shepherd’s tweet received more than 21,000 retweets and 113,000 likes. More important, local and national leaders responded with a renewed commitment to cover extreme heat from a “climate lens.” This interaction illustrates the capacity of individuals to affect media agendas and is consistent with the finding of “visible links between social media and changing public perceptions, with the possibility of public opinion influencing political decision-making” (Mavrodieva et al. 2019).
Effectiveness:
Research from Geiger, Swim, and Fraser (2017) shows a positive correlation between discussing climate change on an interpersonal level and feelings of empowerment to address the problem at hand. Additional research indicates that “people who often or occasionally discuss global warming with family and friends consistently have a greater understanding of global warming, higher risk perceptions, and stronger support for mitigation policies than people who rarely or never discuss it” (Ballew et al. 2019).
The need:
Change the balance of discourse on climate by increasing the likelihood that those who hold science-consistent beliefs about climate change express them.