sciencetech-blog

comments

People who use Facebook and Twitter are less likely than others to share their opinions on hot-button issues, even when they are offline.

That's according to a survey that challenges the view of social media as a vehicle for debate.

The study suggests that sites like Facebook and Twitter might actually encourage self-censorship.

Online loudmouths may be annoying, but a new survey suggests they are in the minority. In a report released Tuesday, the Pew Research Center found that most people who regularly use social media sites were actually less likely to share their opinions, even offline (stock image shown)

The study was carried out by Pew Research Centre in Washington DC in conjunction with Rutgers University in New Jersey.

Researchers said they detected what they call the 'spiral of silence' phenomenon: Unless people know their audience agrees, they are likely to shy away from discussing anything controversial.

In other words, most people are more comfortable with ice-bucket challenges than political banter.

'People do not tend to be using social media for this type of important political discussion,' said Keith Hampton, a communications professor at Rutgers University who helped conduct the study.

'And if anything, it may actually be removing conversation from the public sphere.'

The survey was conducted shortly after Edward Snowden acknowledged leaking classified intelligence that exposed widespread government surveillance of Americans' phone and email records.

Hampton said the Snowden case provided researchers with a concrete example of a major national issue that divided Americans and dominated news coverage.

Of the 1,801 adults surveyed, 86 per cent said they would be willing to discuss their views about government surveillance if it came up at various in-person scenarios, such as at a public meeting, at work or at a restaurant with friends.

But just 42 per cent of Facebook or Twitter users said they would be willing to post online about it.

In addition, the typical Facebook user - defined as someone who logs onto the site a few times per day - was actually half as likely to discuss the Snowden case at a public meeting as a non-Facebook user.

Meanwhile, someone who goes on Twitter a few times per day was one-quarter as likely to share opinions in the workplace compared with those who never use Twitter.

Only when a person felt that their Facebook network agreed with their opinion were they twice as likely to join a site discussion on the issue, the survey found.

Researchers in Washington DC and New Jersey say Facebook (stock image shown) and Twitter are stifling people's opinions. In the study they found typical users were afraid to voice their opinions offline. They call this the 'spiral of silence' phenomenon where people shy away from discussing controversial topics

Another finding was that social media didn't make it easier for people to share opinions they wouldn't otherwise share.

Of the 14 per cent of Americans unwilling to discuss the Snowden case with others in person, fewer than one-half of 1 per cent were willing to discuss it on social media.

Lee Rainie, director of the Pew Research Center Internet Project, said one explanation is it's possible that social media actually makes people sensitive to different opinions.

'Because they use social media, they may know more about the depth of disagreement over the issue in their wide circle of contacts,' he said.

'This might make them hesitant to speak up either online or offline for fear of starting an argument, offending or even losing a friend.'

Hampton added that there is a concern that a person's fear of offending someone on social media stifles debate.

'A society where people aren't able to share their opinions openly and gain from understanding alternative perspectives is a polarised society,' he said.