We need to talk: Willingness to speak out about Catalonia’s secession

J. Balcells, Albert Padró-Solanet
{"title":"We need to talk: Willingness to speak out about Catalonia’s secession","authors":"J. Balcells, Albert Padró-Solanet","doi":"10.1386/cjcs_00002_1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A repeated argument to invalidate the legitimacy of a debate on Catalonia’s independence is the existence of a spiral of silence affecting unionist supporters. However, we find inconclusive empirical evidence to sustain this claim. Although survey data show that willingness to\n talk about secession is higher among pro-independence supporters both in face-to-face and online environments, multivariate regression models – taking into account the perception of the opinion climate – reveal a different and more complex picture. Pro-independence supporters are\n highly mobilized particularly in like-minded and private environments, but this enthusiasm decreases when they perceive their ideas not to be shared by the majority, whereas unionist supporters show a more stable pattern irrespective of the opinion climate. In publicly exposed arenas like\n social media, where activists abound, willingness to talk is lower and differences between both sides are minimal. Overall, the results are hardly consistent with the patterns of behaviour that would be expected in a spiral of silence.","PeriodicalId":53977,"journal":{"name":"Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Catalan Journal of Communication & Cultural Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1386/cjcs_00002_1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

A repeated argument to invalidate the legitimacy of a debate on Catalonia’s independence is the existence of a spiral of silence affecting unionist supporters. However, we find inconclusive empirical evidence to sustain this claim. Although survey data show that willingness to talk about secession is higher among pro-independence supporters both in face-to-face and online environments, multivariate regression models – taking into account the perception of the opinion climate – reveal a different and more complex picture. Pro-independence supporters are highly mobilized particularly in like-minded and private environments, but this enthusiasm decreases when they perceive their ideas not to be shared by the majority, whereas unionist supporters show a more stable pattern irrespective of the opinion climate. In publicly exposed arenas like social media, where activists abound, willingness to talk is lower and differences between both sides are minimal. Overall, the results are hardly consistent with the patterns of behaviour that would be expected in a spiral of silence.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
我们需要谈谈:是否愿意公开谈论加泰罗尼亚的分裂
关于加泰罗尼亚独立辩论合法性无效的一个反复出现的论点是,存在一种影响联合派支持者的沉默螺旋。然而,我们发现不确定的经验证据来支持这一说法。尽管调查数据显示,在面对面和网络环境中,支持独立的人更愿意谈论分裂,但考虑到对舆论氛围的感知,多元回归模型揭示了一个不同的、更复杂的情况。支持独立的人被高度动员起来,尤其是在志同道合的私人环境中,但当他们意识到自己的想法不被大多数人认同时,这种热情就会下降,而支持统一的人则表现出更稳定的模式,无论舆论环境如何。在社交媒体等活动人士众多的公开场合,对话的意愿较低,双方的分歧也很小。总的来说,研究结果与沉默漩涡中预期的行为模式几乎不一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
20.00%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
Quality journalism and advocacy in raising climate awareness: The case of The Guardian Social inequalities in the making sense of climate change narratives Analysis of climate denialism on YouTube: Refuting instead of debating El bucle invisible (The Invisible Loop), Remedios Zafra (2022) The pluriverse of the Anthropocene: One Earth, many worlds
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1