it‘ll. WWII. .1)..- ..." ... a... : ..J. . i3 . was . v; ... 5 .... I . x a. ... :x... .22.. “WTWVSQI. 1 .w. .9. ...: x . t .11 ...... ... 3 t (a .9 ... .1): : rl|'5..’ .... 7 x 1 .I N... 3.... uni» . a H .2! 2. .0. 4 . S 7‘: 9 9 1—7:“... A . . ... .... . . .. . d.:u.....l.tu| Pun?" gr . II .. .9. I: . . 95$. . x: ,. . 1., I, 6:. \ is . 151...: q A RN: “an...“ v.15. .1 r. ,f 3...? .3 (1)113‘!” . . I .21.“..{1mewwmfl . a WYNAE. am“ Hi? I‘lvv‘iu . . . . :9... .3...» : (lb-v.3 9. a c I... 7... ...: .vagslgi . v}. . y .9- 0.1.33.3.5. \ .10.. \......\I q A an? :w «flaw... kwmufia.w§ . _ 9 .A {... t.‘ .. 7.3;! x ,l . .-..” ....e; O. . if}: $1.15.}. 99.. ‘ 16.1.1: agar... , . 1:? "JV-23“.». ....h . . .. . (it .4 . .HY . ‘21:. f; 5...... i... \ .»4.v..\ .) 1‘11? i: (:5.- . l_.9uo Aft... a, 3. S Ls... I v 49.29,. . ... ...... x . ; . 55.? . 1.2.... 9...... ...: .21... -...iflx... a a U $.12“ at: l... ...- fl‘ 153v,- tf , 32.1.1 9!. . ..-...1. .... ..2 u. - . .fiowfln ...- 2.. 2.2.1: .. r .1 331:4... if. . ...: , RM: Awash?! . : u . ‘ . ., . haul 32:55.1! , , ..gifi. m. .m 93...: vLOI’ \ . This is to certify that the dissertation entitled RESISTANCE TO MAJORITY OPINION: RELIGION AND THE “HARD CORE” presented by SCOTT HOWARD CLARKE has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctoral degree in Mass Media ~‘ CW Major Professor’s Signature ma? IQI Vacs, Date MSU is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution LIBRARY Michigan State University ..-.-n-.---.-0-.-.-.-o-o-.-.-u-o-o-o-a-o-o-o-u-o--o--n-.-;r. PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 2/05 p:/C|RC/DaleDue.indd-p.1 RESIST RESISTANCE To MAJORITY OPINION: RELIGION AND THE “HARD CORE” By Scott Howard Clarke A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Advertising, Public Relations, and Retailing 2006 35 a hon] SOCR the u TESIg Core. were of b0: COTES ABSTRACT RESISTANCE TO MAJORITY OPINION: RELIGION AND THE “HARD CORE” By Scott Howard Clarke Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann’s “Spiral of Silence” theory states that social cohesion is maintained via conformity pressures experienced by everyone. Individuals scan the mass media to determine whether their opinions on controversial issues are in the social majority and whether their views are gaining public support. Those who perceive that their opinions are in the minority or are losing support will be silenced. Nevertheless, a “hard core” of persons often resists opinion change. This study examines religious groups as a source of Opinion resistance on two controversial social issues: abortion and homosexuality. Dean Kelley theorized that “exclusivist” (or “sectarian”) religious groups resist societal values through absolutist interpretations of “truth,” rigid in-group conformity and the use of alternative communication systems. These are the same three methods of resistance that Noelle-Neumann hypothesizes for the hard core. This project devised and tested an operational definition of the Opinion “hard core.” The study’s results reveal that hard cores were younger than other respondents, but were otherwise Similar to the sample as a whole. Hard cores were also heavier consumers of both mass and alternative (religious) media. In addition, the data suggest that hard cores may have disproportionately come from “exclusivist” religious groups. The hard core also appears to be issue specific. These persons perceived the prevailing opinion climate and the future climate of opinion on both issues to be more liberal than other respondents did. The hard core’s opinions on the abortion issue were more conservative than others’ Opinions. However, their opinions on the homosexuality issue were not significantly different from other respondents’ opinions. The study’s findings are discussed in terms of the Spiral of Silence, and several suggestions for future investigations of the “hard core” are offered. These suggestions include greater research attention to persons’ reference groups and to their alternative media use as methods of resisting mass media influence. Cepyn'ght by SCOTT HOWARD CLARKE 2006 he] 3?] for for reg quc ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to thank the members of the dissertation committee for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of the project. In particular, the author expresses his appreciation to Dr. Charles T. Salmon for suggesting a study of the Spiral of Silence and for his important insights into the areas of the theory needing conceptual development, to Dr. Franklin Boster for his assistance with the Statistical analyses, to Dr. Frederick Fico for his helpful comments on the methods section and to Dr. Nora Rifon for her insights regarding the conclusions to be drawn from this study. The author also wishes to thank the leaders and congregations of the churches that participated in this project. Your timely and complete responses to the very personal questions in the social Opinions survey were invaluable. TAB AC7 [JS Cll CHA. CHAJ CHAF APPE; BlBLI TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................ ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................... v LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vii RESISTANCE TO MAJORITY OPINION: RELIGION AND THE "HARD CORE" ..... 1 CHAPTER 1: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................ l The Spiral of Silence ............................................................................................... l Church-Sect Theory .............................................................................................. 10 Attitude Theory ..................................................................................................... 16 Reference Group Theory ....................................................................................... 19 Communication Patterns ....................................................................................... 22 Summary ............................................................................................................... 27 Hypotheses and Research Questions ..................................................................... 29 CHAPTER 2: METHOD ............................................................................................ 36 CHAPTER 3: RESULTS .................................................................................................. 55 CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 79 APPENDICES ................................................................................................................... 92 Appendix A: Survey Instrument ........................................................................... 93 Appendix B: Group Strictness Rating Form ....................................................... 100 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................... 104 vi TAB TAB TABI TAB] TAB] TAB] TABl TABI TABl TABl TABL TABL TABL TABL TABL TABL TABL TABL TABI TABI TABI LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: Abortion Issue ................................................................................................. 39 TABLE 2: Homosexuality Issue ....................................................................................... 41 TABLE 3: Sample Demographics ..................................................................................... 54 TABLE 4: Willingness to Express, by Majority Status .................................................... 55 TABLE 5: Willingness to Express, by Social Support ..................................................... 57 TABLE 6: Behavioral Willingness, by Method ................................................................ 59 TABLE 7: Perceptions of Opinion Climates (Abortion) .................................................. 60 TABLE 8: Perceptions Of Opinion Climates (Homosexuality) ........................................ 61 TABLE 9: Abortion Legality, by SES .............................................................................. 63 TABLE 10: Homosexuality Legality, by SES .................................................................. 64 TABLE 11: Abortion Legality (Sample) .......................................................................... 65 TABLE 12: Homosexuality Legality (Sample) ................................................................ 66 TABLE 13: Willingness to Express, by Majority Status (Strict Groups) ......................... 67 TABLE 14: Willingness to Express, by Social Support (Strict Groups) .......................... 68 TABLE 15: Avant-Gardes and Hard Cores, by Issue ....................................................... 70 TABLE 16: Hard Cores, by Religious Group ................................................................... 71 TABLE 17: Media Use ..................................................................................................... 72 TABLE 18: Predictors of Own Opinion (Abortion) ......................................................... 75 TABLE 19: Predictors of Own Opinion (Homosexuality) ............................................... 76 TABLE 20: Predictors of Willingness to Express (Abortion) .......................................... 77 TABLE 21: Predictors of Willingness to Express (Homosexuality) ................................ 78 vii RESISTANCE TO MAJ ORlTY OPINION: RELIGION AND THE “HARD CORE” Chapter I: Literature Review The Spiral of Silence Introduction. The “Spiral of Silence” (Noelle-Neumann, 1974, 1991, 1993) has been called “one of the most significant theoretical developments in public opinion research” (Glynn & Park, 1997, p. 213), linking individual- and social-level variables in a dynamic process of opinion formation and change (Glynn & Park, 1997; Kennamer, 1990). It also gives mass media a central role in this process (Noelle-Neumann, 1973; Price & Allen, 1990). A sizeable portion of American research into the Spiral of Silence has been concerned with clarifying or critiquing various portions of the theory. However, just two studies (Glynn & McLeod, 1982, 1984) have investigated the opinion “hard cores” who are able to resist social conformity pressures. These projects examined only one facet of possible resistance — stability of voting intention - leaving “much to be desired” (Glynn & McLeod, 1985, p. 61; see also Noelle-Neumann, 1985). Therefore, the task of determining just what characterizes the hard core, those who are “hardly susceptible to the threat of isolation [nor] ruled by fear of isolation” (Noelle-Neumann, 1991, p. 274), remains. This is hardly surprising, since communication theory tends to “overlook, or at least underplay, the role of resistance” (Knowles & Linn, 2004). This study develops the concept of the opinion hard core, both theoretically and empirically. Those descriptions of the “hard core” scattered throughout Noelle- Neumann’s writings will be compared to the characteristics of “sectarian” religious groups. It will be shown that both the “hard core” and “sectarian” groups have three traits in cor comn‘ comrr hard c advan grew ( panies and~nc the Ch hYPOIh based ( COV'em‘. 83Verh becamg PIOduC leadiné that a I NCUm-. PhEnOI a “pre( in common — absolutist/“dogmatic” attitudes, strong in-group ties, and alternative communication sources. Insights from the sociological, social-psychological and communication literatures will be presented to demonstrate how these traits permit the hard core to resist social conformity pressures. Finally, the theoretical developments advanced in this analysis will be empirically tested. Background. According to Noelle-Neumann, the theory of a “Spiral of silence” grew out of her work studying German elections. In 1965, supporters of both major parties consistently reported similar voting intentions, giving the impression of a “neck- and-neck race”. However, a “last minute swing” led to a surprise “bandwagon effect” for the Christian Democratic Party (Noelle-Neumann, 1985, 1993). Noelle-Neumann hypothesized that voters developed divergent expectations of which party would win based on biased television coverage of the incumbent party. She hypothesized that this coverage led to a “climate of Opinion” more favorable to the Christian Democrats, which gave their supporters greater confidence. At the same time, supporters of other parties became disheartened and fell silent, further weakening their apparent strength and producing the bandwagon effect (Noelle-Neumann, 1985, 1993). Noelle-Neumann subsequently Observed similar behaviors in other contexts, leading her to conclude that a pervasive fear of social isolation exists. She hypothesized that a threat of social ostracism lay behind what she termed a “spiral of silence” (Noelle- Neumann, 1973, 1974, 1993). This hypothesis led Noelle-Neumann to search for historical evidence of such a phenomenon. She found in Tocqueville’s history of the French Revolution what she calls a “precise description of the dynamics of the spiral of silence” (Noelle-Neumann, 1993, 19‘. ofi scie 1951 Silen CH'dc next : more p. 7). Tocqueville recounts how popular contempt for religion grew prior to the revolution, while the faithful were silenced: Those who retained their belief in the doctrines of the Church became afraid of being alone in their allegiance and, dreading isolation more than the stigma of heresy, professed to share the sentiments of the majority. So what was in reality the opinion of only a part (though a large one) of the nation came to be regarded as the will of all and for this reason seemed irresistible even to those who had given it this false appearance (Tocqueville, 1856/1955, p. 155) Noelle-Neumann often cites this passage (Noelle-Neumann, 1973, 1974, 1979, 1991, 1993) as suggesting both a collective “threat of isolation” and an individual “fear Of isolation”. Next, Noelle-Neumann turned to ongoing experiments in social psychology for scientific evidence of such social pressures. She considered Solomon Asch’s (1952; 1956; 1958) “conformity” experiments to be particularly applicable to her hypothesis of silence. In her later works, she reports finding extensive historical and experimental evidence for the Spiral of Silence (Noelle-Neumann, 1985, 1993, 1995). Therefore, the next section reviews the major propositions of Noelle-Neumann’s theory, along with her more recent elaborations and clarifications of it. The Theory. Noelle-Neumann defines “public opinion” as a process of social control, “centered on ensuring a sufficient level of consensus within society on the community’s values and goals” (1993, p. 229). Public Opinion in this sense includes social expectations regarding ideas, opinions or modes of behavior (Noelle-Neumann, 1991, 1993). Society maintains consensus by pressuring “deviant” individuals to conform 9’ ‘6 through threat of social “isolation, rejection” or “ostracism” (Noelle-Neumann, 1993, p. 228-229). This pressure is said to be stronger in egalitarian societies (Noelle-Neumann, mc exe of L 198‘ CQUSI Opini P- 20. (Noel the S(" 1993) and during periods of social crisis, threat, or “rapidly changing values” (Noelle- Neumann, 1989, p. 7). The “social nature” (Noelle-Neumann, 1985, p. 70) of individuals makes them especially sensitive to consensus pressure. Although everyone experiences this fear of isolation “continuously” (Noelle-Neumann, 1993, p. 202), it is “generally unconscious and probably genetically based” (Noelle-Neumann, 1991, p. 259). Noelle-Neumann maintains that the “threat of isolation” is effective only for “controversial” (Noelle-Neumann, 1989, p. 26) topics having a “strong emotional or moral component” (Noelle-Neumann, 1993, p. 200), since only these are capable of exerting conformity pressure (1977; 1985; 1989; 1993; 1994). She claims that this aspect of the theory has always been assumed, but was not always explicit (Noelle-Neumann, 1989, 1991, 1993). The “fear of appearing contemptible to others” (Noelle-Neumann, 1985, p. 72) causes individuals to constantly monitor their social environment for clues about “which opinions and forms of behavior are gaining or losing strength” (Noelle-Neumann, 1993, p. 202). Noelle-Neumann calls this unconscious process a “quasi-statistical sense” (Noelle-Neumann, 1993, p. 202). Individuals use two primary sources for assessing the distribution of opinions in the social environment: their firsthand observations and the mass media. In most situations, however, the mass media — particularly television — exert the greater influence (Noelle-Neumann, 1973, 1985, 1993, 1999). “For all questions outside [an individual’s] immediate personal sphere he is almost totally dependent on mass media for the facts and for his evaluation of the climate of opinion” (Noelle-Neumann, 1974, p. 51). Noelle- Neumann assumes the mass media to be ideologically consonant, ubiquitous, and capable of producing cumulative long-term effects (Noelle-Neumann, 1973, 1999). In Noelle-Neumann’s (1974) view, “the mass media have to be seen as creating [italics added] public opinion: they provide the environmental pressure to which people respond” (p. 51). This pressure is created through two complementary processes. First, the media popularize and legitimate certain viewpoints by selecting which issues to cover (an agenda-setting function). This exposure, in turn, enables individuals holding similar opinions to express themselves more articulately and confidently (an “articulation function”) (Noelle-Neumann, 1985, 1993). This process is particularly useful when the “tenor of the media” (Noelle- Neumann, 1991, 1994) supports a minority viewpoint, since it convinces the minority that its view is morally “right”. By contrast, those whose perspectives are not covered by the media are rendered “effectively mute” (Noelle-Neumann, 1993, p. 173). Occasionally, media content becomes so biased that it fosters “a state of pluralistic ignorance” in which minority opinion holders believe they are in the majority, or vice versa (Noelle-Neumann, 1985, p. 80). Furthermore, “under very special circumstances. . .the climate of opinion among the people and that dominant among media journalists diverge,” creating a “dual climate of opinion” (Noelle-Neumann, 1993, p. 168). Noelle-Neumann says such circumstances may arise during election campaigns, “because at such times direct communication between the candidates and the population takes on more importance in addition to media communication” (Noelle-Neumann, 1985, p. 80; see also Noelle-Neumann, 1989). In sum, then, individuals scan both their immediate social environment and the mass media to determine whether their views are in the majority or are gaining support. If either is the case, these individuals should be confident and willing to publicly express them. On the other hand, those whose views are in the minority or are losing support will “become cautious and silent, thus reinforcing the impression of weakness, until the apparently weaker side disappears completely except for a hard core that holds on to its previous values, or until the opinion becomes taboo” (Noelle-Neumann, 1993, p. 202). Little is known about the “hard core” that remains at the end of an opinion change process. Noelle-Neumann confesses only a basic understanding herself. She refers to the “hard core” as “exceptions to the rule” (Noelle-Neumann, 1993, p. 170), since 9’ 6‘ these individuals, like the “avant-garde, either know no fear of isolation or have overcome it” (Noelle-Neumann, 1993, p. 139). The next section reviews Noelle- Neumann’s various writings on the “hard core”. The Hard Core. The earliest tests of the Spiral Of Silence revealed that some minority opinion holders were more willing to express themselves than were those in the numerical majority moelle-Neumann, 1973, 1974, 1993). These findings convinced Noelle-Neumann that some individuals were able to resist the social threat of isolation (Noelle-Neumann, 1993). She hypothesized two such groups. The first was those persons who are able to resist (or even use) public opinion pressure to introduce social change, commonly called the “avant-garde” (Noelle-Neumann, 1993). The second consisted of those individuals who remain confident in their opinions at the end of an Opinion “spiral”. She labeled this group the “hard core” (Noelle-Neumann, 1974, 1993). The avant-garde and the hard core thus appear at both ends of an opinion change process. “At the beginning and towards the end of changes in the climate of Opinion, minorities — avant-garde and hard core — are more willing to stand up for their opinion than the majority. . .” (Noelle-Neumann, 1977, p. 151). Avant-gardes are oriented to the future, confident that their views will eventually win out. Conversely, the hard core is oriented to the past, to “traditional” social views (Noelle-Neumann, 1993). In fact, the hard core may consider itself to be an “avant—garde,” leading public opinion back to its point of view (Noelle-Neumann, 1993). Noelle-Neumann summarizes: Unlike the members of the avant-garde, a hard core can turn its back to the public, can close itself completely off when it finds itself in public with strangers, can encapsulate itself like a sect and orient itself to the past or to the most distant future (Noelle-Neumann, 1993, p. 170). How the hard core manages to “close itself Off” to public opinion pressure is unclear to Noelle-Neumann (1993), although she claims that personality traits alone cannot account for this phenomenon. This suggests that it is an individual’s perspective on social pressure that matters. Noelle-Neumann (1993) notes three such perspectives in her analysis of the avant-garde. First, social “deviants” may be largely unaffected by public opinion pressure (p. 140). Second, individuals may endure the pressure because they believe they must — even if it means suffering. Third, some people enjoy public scrutiny and are even motivated by it. The hard core likely takes these same perspectives, since Asch observed the same three characteristics in his “independent” subjects (Asch, 1952, 1956, 1958). Elsewhere, Noelle-Neumann suggests that some individuals “may get accustomed to isolation” (Noelle-Neumann, 1974, p. 49). That passage provides further insights into the hard core’s methods Of resistance: These findings suggest that, after a lengthy struggle, a minority faction may be reduced to a hard core of persons who are not prepared to conform, to change their opinions, or even to be silent in the face of public opinion. Some members of this group may get accustomed to isolation, and many of them may manage to support their opinions by selecting out persons and media which confirm their views (Noelle-Neumann, 1974, pp. 48-49). This statement demonstrates that the hard core is in fact a minority group. Noelle- Neumann has proposed that members of the avant-garde and the hard core together do not exceed “10 to 15% of the population” - they may be considered “marginal groups” (Noelle-Neumann, 1985, p. 85). Furthermore, the idea that hard cores may select “persons and media which confirm their views” (Noelle-Neumann, 1974, p. 49) parallels Noelle-Neumann’s ideas on the “dual climate of opinion”. This “gap in perception” results when .. .persons who have much exposure to the media take a different view of the climate of Opinion and where the majority is to be found than persons who do not have much exposure to the media and essentially depend on their immediate observations (Noelle-Neumann, 1989, p. 21). An individual’s “immediate Observations” undoubtedly involve “persons and media which confirm their views” (Noelle-Neumann, 1974, p. 49). Indeed, Noelle- Neumann often states that the concepts of the “hard core” and the “dual climate of opinion” require further development (Noelle-Neumann, 1985, 1989, 1993, 1994). Nevertheless, she downplays ideas linking the two. For instance: .. .I have not talked about friends and acquaintances, about the individual’s various reference groups. I do not see these as alternatives in the process of opinion formation, that is, it is not either the mass media or the reference groups. . .You cannot talk about alternatives — the influence of the mass media versus the influence of primary groups, in all seriousness; at best you can talk about very interesting mutual reinforcement or attenuation” (Noelle-Neumann, 1985, p. 84). Perhaps Noelle-Neumann is thinking only of persons who are not members of the avante-garde or the opinion hard core. At any rate, her statement that the hard core “. . .can turn its back to the public, can close itself completely Off when it finds itself in public with strangers, can encapsulate itself like a sect...” (Noelle-Neumann, 1993, p. 170, italics added) suggests an important avenue of investigation. This study focuses on the characteristics of “sectarian” (O'Dea, 1966; Stark & Bainbridge, 1979) religious groups, since they appear likely to be opinion hard cores. The selection of this group was guided by six theoretical considerations. First, N oelle- Neumann (1993) criticizes Lowell (1919) for excluding religion (among other topics) from his definition of public opinion, stating that her concept “is not [similarly] restricted in subject matter” (p. 64). Second, the Spiral of Silence is partly derived from Noelle- Neumann’s reading of Toqueville (1856/1955), which in itself suggests the appropriateness of religion as a topic. Third, Noelle-Neumann (citing TOnnies, 2000) alludes to religion’s protective potential: “Under certain conditions. . .the exposed individual is sheltered by the intimacy and trust engendered through, for example, a shared religion. In great civilizations, however, the individual stands exposed even more openly to the demands of society (Noelle-Neumann, 1993, pp. 61-62). Fourth, Noelle- Neumann (1993) cites the Bible as a source of information about public opinion. Fifth, she claims that the “threat of isolation” is only effective for issues with a “strong emotional or moral component” (Noelle-Neumann, 1993, p. 200, italics added.) Sixth, the hypothesis of silence in the face Of majority opposition cannot account for religious martyrdom (Boyarin, 1999; Riddle, 1931; M. Sherif & Cantril, 1947). Religious groups’ positions on social issues are frequently at odds with prevailing public opinion. However, their influence on individuals’ willingness to publicly express controversial opinions has never been tested. Noelle-Neumann, following TOnnies (2000), assumes that religion’s protective influence is limited to “primitive societies” (1989, p. 7). Furthermore, her analysis of Tocqueville (1856/1955) indicates that religious persons are just as susceptible to the Spiral of Silence as anyone else. However, a more plausible explanation is that TOnnies (2000) and Tocqueville (1856/1955) are speaking of qualitatively different types of religion in different cultural contexts. Church-Sect Theory Church and Sect. Max Weber (1922/1963) first proposed a conceptual distinction 9’ 6‘ between “churches, sects” and “cults,” based largely on the degree of institutionalization prevalent within a religious group. He defined an established, formalized and highly structured religious group as a “church” (Stark & Bainbridge, 1979, 1985;Troe1tsch, 1931/1981; Weber, 1922/1963). This is the type of group that Tocqueville (1856/1955) studied. A “cult,” on the other hand, is an informal, compact group that gathers periodically to perform common rituals (Durkheim, 1912/1976; Weber, 1922/1963). Therefore, the “shared religion” in a primitive society (TOnnies, 2000) is a “cult” in the original sense of the word. A “sect” is similar to a “cult” in many respects. The major distinction between the two is that a “cult” is a newly formed religious group, while a “sect” is typically formed by division within an existing body (Stark & Bainbridge, 1979, 1985; Troeltsch, 1931/ 1981; Weber, 1922/ 1963). Both groups exist “in a high state of tension with their 10 surrounding sociocultural environment” (Stark & Bainbridge, 1985, p. 24). This is the dimension most relevant to the Spiral of Silence. O’Dea (1966, p. 68) defines “churches” by their “tendency to adjust to and compromise with the existing society and its values and institutions.” “Sects,” on the other hand, promote “separatism from the general society and withdrawal from or defiance Of the world and its institutions and values” (1966, p. 68, see also B. Johnson, 1963;Troe1tsch, 1931/ 1981; Wilson, 1959, 1970). Sectarian groups may remain within an established church, hoping to reform it (O'Dea, 1966; Stark & Bainbridge, 1979, 1985; Wuthnow, 1988). Alternatively, they may secede from a church (or another sect) to form their own community (O'Dea, 1966; Stark & Bainbridge, 1985). Strictness and Leniency. Dean Kelley (1972) proposed a more elegant typology, defining a religious group in terms of its “strictness”. He describes groups as relatively “ecumenical” or “exclusivist”. These terms permit the classification of non-Christian groups as well as Christian groups that do not consider themselves “churches,” “denominations,” “sects” or “cults” (Clark, 1949; D. M. Kelley, 1972). Therefore, this study uses Kelley’s terminology. Kelley (1972) examines three characteristics of a social group: its goals, social controls and communication patterns. The Spiral of Silence is also concerned with these traits at the societal level — social consensus, the threat of isolation and the climate of opinion, respectively. Noelle-Neumann (1985) believes societal forces determine individual opinion expression (or silence): “‘Climate of Opinion’ - the concept is particularly well suited to express the external influence associated with public opinion, 11 which also represents an internal influence on human beings, as well as the omnipresence of public opinion from which nobody can withdraw” (p. 84). Kelley (1972), however, assumes that small group processes exert the strongest influence on individuals; particularly for those who belong to “strict” groups. This hypothesis is more intuitively appealing and is supported by the bulk of the conformity literature (Bond & Smith, 1996). Kelley hypothesizes that group strictness directly translates to social strength, the “cohesion, vitality, and functional effectiveness” (p. 56) of a group. He states: “A group with evidences of social strength will proportionately show traits of strictness; a group with traits of leniency will proportionately show evidences of social weakness rather than strength ” (D. M. Kelley, 1972, p. 86). Kelley (1972) defines “strictness” and “leniency” in terms of the social “cost” of group membership. He states that exclusivist groups are defined by absolutism, conformity and fanaticism, whereas ecumenical groups stress relativism, diversity and dialogue. Each of these traits reflects the group’s relative separation from, or accommodation to, society (B. Johnson, 1963; O'Dea, 1966). Strict groups practice doctrinal absolutism. They believe that only they possess the “truth” and that all others are in error. Their teachings are believed to explain everything and members follow them with “uncritical and unreflective tenacity” (D. M. Kelley, 1972, p. 79). Conversely, lenient groups observe doctrinal relativism. They believe that “no one has a monopoly on truth” (p. 82) and members are skeptical of any such claims to authority. Furthermore, religion is seen as only one source of personal values and fulfillment in a modern society. 12 Exclusivist groups require strict conformity, not only in matters of faith and morals but also in personal habits such as speech, dress or conduct. Kelley (1972) states: These peculiarities are the uniform of the group, which demonstrates to all that they are different from other people. These are their shared Stigmata of solidarity, their badge of belonging. The ridicule and persecution it draws down, even upon children, is an important element in reinforcing the mutual support within the group and in increasing their separation from the hostile outside world (p. 80). Deviance is not tolerated — such groups discipline non-conforming members by methods like “shunning,” group confessions or even excommunication. Ecumenical groups have no such requirements — individual differences are respected and diversity is encouraged (see also Troeltsch, 193 1/ 1981). Strict groups evidence a communication pattern in which the flow of messages out of the group exceeds the flow into it. Kelley (1972) calls this fanaticism. This imbalance is created when groups either form a community physically isolated from the outside world or issue such a barrage of outgoing messages themselves that incoming ones are ineffective. Lenient groups, on the other hand, are characterized by dialogue, “the exchange of differing insights among equals” (D. M. Kelley, 1972, p. 82). Kelley (1972) proposes a direct relationship between a group’s “strictness” and the “social strength” of its membership. Strong groups demonstrate commitment, discipline and missionary zeal, while weak groups are characterized by “lukewarmness,” individualism and reserve. Kelley (1972) defines commitment as the degree to which individuals’ goals are “highly or wholly identified with — or derived from — those of the group” (p. 57. See also Smith, Emerson, Gallagher, Kennedy, & Sikkink, 1998). Because strict groups demand more from their members, they receive more. Members are willing to “suffer persecution, l3 to sacrifice status, possessions, safety, and life itself” (D. M. Kelley, 1972, p. 57) for the group’s cause. Weak groups are characterized by “lukewarmness, ” or social lassitude. Since lenient groups emphasize the relativity of values, none merit personal sacrifice (see also Rosenberg, 1951). Strong groups are willing to enforce discipline, sanctions or punishments for deviance. Members of strict groups are willing to follow authority without question and to “fully submit themselves” (D. M. Kelley, 1972, p. 85) to group discipline. Because lenient groups are characterized by individualism, group discipline becomes impractical: “It works only until it comes in conflict with each individual’s convictions, disposition, or convenience, whereupon he is inclined to abandon the group rather than submit to its demands” (p. 85). Such groups find it increasingly difficult to motivate their members. A third characteristic of strong groups is their members’ missionary zeal, “an eagerness to tell the Good News to others, with warmth and confidence and winsomeness in the telling, refusing to be silenced even by repression or persecution” (D. M. Kelley, 1972, p. 58, italics added). The heavy outflow of communication from strict groups is matched by a high degree of internal communication, enhancing group cohesion and stability. On the other hand, members of weak groups are generally reluctant to share their views with others, since they believe all truth is relative. Kelley (1972) calls this personal reserve: “One of the by-products of individualism seems to be a reluctance to expose one’s personal convictions and deepest feelings to public scrutiny, let alone to flaunt or intrude or impose them unsought on indifferent or resistant others” (p. 85). This statement directly echoes Noelle-Neumann’s (1974; 1991; 1993) formulation of the Spiral of Silence. l4 Strictness and the Hard Core. Kelley’s theory has several important implications for the Spiral of Silence. First, it suggests that individuals will value social consensus differently, depending on their group loyalties. Members of ecumenical groups seek balance and compromise with opposing views (consensus). For members of exclusivist groups, however, there is only one truth — “consensus” is irrelevant. Kelley states: “One would think that knowledge began with them, that all other attempts to explain life are sadly in error and hardly worthy of notice, let alone respect or credence” (D. M. Kelley, 1972, pp. 78—79). Second, Kelley assumes that people will value conformity according to their group membership. Exclusivist groups require strict conformity, not only in attitudes, but also in lifestyle. Such “deviant” practices invite ridicule and persecution by outsiders, but the social pressure they exert is tolerated — even welcomed — as “proof ’ of their group’s legitimacy. Ecumenical groups value individualism, so social pressure is unexpected (D. M. Kelley, 1972). As a result, these individuals should be less equipped to handle threats of isolation. Third, the theory explains differential exposure to the “climate of opinion”. Ecumenical groups are open to dialogue and the exchange of ideas, whereas exclusivist groups tend to isolate themselves from outside communication. Strict groups also produce a “flood” of their own messages and foster greater communication among members. Therefore, one would expect the climate of opinion to have different effects on the members of each group. Iannaccone (1997) believes Kelley’s measures of religious “strictness” can be summarized as “the degree to which a group demands sacrifice and stigma or, 15 equivalently, the degree to which it limits and thereby increases the cost of non-group activities, such as socializing with members of other religious or pursuing ‘secular’ pastimes” (p. 104). This “economic” view of religion restates and explains the dynamic of Kelley’s (1972) thesis, that strict groups require a commitment level from their members sufficient to endure social stigma. Those persons who are unwilling to commit either do not join the group, or leave it once the social “cost” becomes too high (Iannaccone, 1994, 1997). Successful groups typically provide substitutes for the things that they prohibit members from attaining elsewhere. He explains, “Sects that isolate their members socially must provide alternative social networks with ample opportunities for interaction, friendship, and status” (Iannaccone, 1994, p. 1204). The foregoing discussion suggests that members of “strict” religious groups may be opinion hard cores. The following sections develop Kelley’s (1972) notions of strictness from the sociological, social-psychological and communication literatures. This review will be guided by his characteristics of exclusivity and social strength, which are also present in Noelle-Neumann’s (1974; 1993) writings on the hard core: absolutism and commitment (attitude theory), conformity and discipline (reference group theory), and fanaticism and missionary zeal (communication theory). Attitude Theory Dogmatism. Kelley’s (1972) discussion of doctrinal absolutism echoes Rokeach’s theory of “dogmatism” (Rokeach, 1960; Rokeach & Restle, 1960). Rokeach assumed that the human mind is composed of two interdependent and asymmetrical components that 16 he called the “belief—disbelief system”. This structure involves a system of beliefs that one accepts and a series of systems that one rejects, respectively. Individual belief-disbelief systems vary along several dimensions, demonstrating how “open” or “closed” they are. The first dimension is isolation, the degree to which one is reluctant to recognize cognitively similar beliefs. In isolated systems, a dogmatic person may “compartrnentalize” contradictory beliefs, accentuate the differences or minimize the similarities between belief and disbelief systems, consider contradictory information irrelevant or deny that a contradiction even exists (Rokeach, 1960; Rokeach & Restle, 1960). The second dimension of belief-disbelief systems is their differentiation. Systems are said to be differentiated based both on the amount of knowledge one possesses and the perception of similarity between adjacent disbelief subsystems (Rokeach, 1960). Dogmatic persons have a relatively high discrepancy in the degree of differentiation between their belief and disbelief systems (Rokeach, 1960; Rokeach & Restle, 1960). A third dimension of belief-disbelief systems is their comprehensiveness (or narrowness). This refers to the number and range of disbelief subsystems that a person possesses (Rokeach, 1960). Dogmatic individuals have narrow disbelief systems (Rokeach, 1960; Rokeach & Restle, 1960). The belief-disbelief system is arranged such that certain beliefs are more basic than are others (see also Hunter, Levine, & Sayers, 1976; Rokeach, 1976). The central region represents a person’s “primitive” beliefs, those that everyone is assumed to share. Asch’s (1952; 1956; 1958) experiments tested subjects’ primitive beliefs regarding the perception of line lengths. An intermediate region represents a person’s beliefs about the 17 nature of authority and those in authority. The peripheral region represents those beliefs that an individual derives from authority. Dogmatic people have stronger beliefs in absolute authority (Rokeach, 1960; Rokeach & Restle, 1960). Rokeach (1960) writes: We suspect that the world of people is generally evaluated according to the authorities and belief systems they line up with. . .When an authority is seen to be absolute, for example, it also leads to extreme cognitive distinctions between persons as faithful and unfaithful, orthodox and heretical, loyal and subversive, American and un-American, friend and enemy (p. 45). As persons encounter new information, they screen it for compatibility with their existing belief systems. This screening process begins at the level of primitive beliefs and filters down through authority beliefs to one’s “world outlook” (peripheral beliefs). The information may be screened out or distorted at any point along the way, a process Rokeach (1960) calls cognitive narrowing. He hypothesizes that individuals will selectively avoid contact with information that would “threaten the validity of their ideology or proselyte for competing ideologies” (p. 48). Belief-disbelief systems may also be analyzed according to an individual’s time perspective. Rokeach (1960) explains: “A narrow time perspective is one in which the person overemphasizes or fixates on the past, or the present, or the future without appreciating the continuity and the connections that exist between them” (p. 51). Noelle- Neumann (1993) similarly characterizes the “hard core” as oriented “to the past or to the most distant future” (p. 170). Rokeach and his colleagues (Rokeach, Toch, & Rottman, 1960) extend the concept of dogmatism from individuals to groups, since “what holds true of people considered in isolation should also apply to people who hold beliefs in common and form groups” (p. 377). Indeed, Kelley’s ( 1972) definition of absolutism as a “closed system Of 18 meaning and value which explains everything” (p. 84) reveals the dogmatic character of strict religious groups. Reference Group Theory Asch’s (1952; 1956; 1958) experiments tested the effects of group influence on a solitary individual. Since these experimental groups were all small (a maximum of 9 members -- see Asch, 1952; 1956), it is puzzling that Noelle-Neumann considers societal pressures more potent than group influences. This is likely the result of a failure to distinguish between group-level and collective processes (Merton, 1968; Salmon & Kline, 1985). Nor did Asch’s groups exert just one form of social influence, as Noelle- Neumann assumes. In fact, Cialdini and Trost ( 1998) distinguish three types of influence, which they label social norms. They define social norms as “rules and standards that are understood by members of a group, and that guide and/or constrain social behavior without the force of laws” (Cialdini & Trost, 1998, p. 152; see also Rokeach, 1980). They explain that, although norms may or may not be explicit, they are socially enforced. Festinger’s (1950; 1954) Social Comparison Theory provides several insights into the process of social consensus. Individuals look to social groups for validation of their opinions. Consequently, they usually seek out groups in which others hold Opinions similar to their own (but see Kruglanski & Mayseless, 1987). When a discrepancy exists between an individual’s Opinion and that of the group, a “pressure toward uniformity” (Festinger, 1950, 1954) will motivate the individual to change his/her Opinion “so as to move closer to others in the group,” or to try to convert “others in the group to bring them 19 closer” to the individual’s opinion (Festinger, 1954, p. 126). If the discrepancy cannot be resolved, the individual will be motivated to cease associating with the group - or the group may excommunicate the member (Festinger, 1950; Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1963; Schachter, 1951). Reference groups may serve positive or negative functions (Newcomb, 1958; Newcomb & Charters, 1950). Positive reference groups motivate individuals to assimilate their norms as a basis for self-appraisal (see also Festinger, 1954). Negative reference groups, on the other hand, not only motivate the rejection of their norms but also the formation of counter-norms (Merton, 1968; Newcomb, 1958; Newcomb & Charters, 1950). The Sherifs make very similar points in their discussion of “in-groups” and “out- groups: (M. Sherif & Sherif, 1956). They consider an in-group to be synonymous with a reference group, a group “to which the individual relates himself as a part or to which he aspires to relate himself psychologically” (M. Sherif, 1953, p. 206). Groups with which one does not identify are defined as out-groups (M. Sherif & Sherif, 1956). Social Categorization Theory proposes that people classify themselves and others into distinct categories that minimize the apparent differences between persons within a group and maximize the perceived differences between groups. This is in essence a form of belief-disbelief isolation (Rokeach, 1960; Rokeach & Restle, 1960) at the group level, also called social stereotyping (Oakes, Haslam, & Turner, 1994; Tajfel, 1981; Turner, 1982). Lippman (1922/1965, p. 59) explains the cognitive “necessity” for stereotyping: “For the attempt to see all things freshly and in detail, rather than as types and generalities, is exhausting, and among busy affairs practically out of the question.” 20 Social categorization serves two purposes. The first is cognitive: “ordering, systematizing, and simplifying the complex network of social groups confronting individuals in their social environment” (Tajfel, 1981, p. 21). The second is evaluative, serving “to protect, maintain, or enhance the value systems applying to distinctions between social groups” (p. 21). This exaggeration of similarities and differences is conceptually similar to ego involvement (C. W. Sherif, 1980; C. W. Sherif & Sherif, 1967; C. W. Sherif, Sherif, & Nebergall, 1981; M. Sherif & Cantril, 1947; M. Sherif & Hovland, 1961). Individuals use social categories to define themselves in terms of their reference groups: Psychological group membership is thus a matter of acquisition, development or internalization of a cognitive representation of self as identical to or interchangeable with other members of the group, on dimensions (behavioural, attitudinal, perceptual, etc.) which characterize, define or are stereotypical of the group. In this way, psychological group belongingness is inextricably linked with stereotypical social uniformities in behaviour, attitudes, perceptions, etc. - that is, with expression of or conformity to ingroup norms (Hogg & Turner, 1987, p. 148). Generally, individuals have multiple reference groups, both positive and negative. The critical factor in a person’s opinion formation is which group’s are most salient in a given situation (Charters & Newcomb, 1958; Fiske & Taylor, 1991; H. H. Kelley, 1955; Wood, 2000). Hogg and Turner call this selection process “referent informational influence” (Hogg & Turner, 1987; Turner, 1982, 1985). The “variability of self-categorization” allows individuals to select which social stimuli are relevant, to determine which group norms are appropriate for responding to the stimuli, and to decide which forms those responses should take (Tajfel & Turner, 1986; Turner, Oakes, Haslam, & McGarty, 1994). 21 Communication Patterns N oelle-Neumann (1973) assumes that the mass media are consonant, ubiquitous and have cumulative effects. The Spiral of Silence (1989) predicts that users of “trend- setting media (media which are cited by other media and heeded by politicians)” will take tolerant attitudes toward “emotionally loaded and morally charged” topics (p. 20). This is because Noelle-Neumann (1973; 1993; 1994) believes the general “tenor of the media” leans left. Some doubt the plausibility of this hypothesis, particularly in the more pluralistic United States system (Alley, 1990a, 1990b; Csikszenthmihalyi, 1991; Glynn & McLeod, 1985; Katz, 1983; Salmon & Kline, 1985; Selnow, 1990; Selnow & Gilbert, 1993). At any rate, exclusivist groups also assume a liberal media bias — particularly against conservative religion (Bozell, 2003; Budde, 1997; Buddenbaum, 2001; Ferré, 1985; Haynes, 2000; Newman, 1996; Schultze, 1996; Wildmon, 1985; Wright, 1997). Therefore, these groups Often produce their own communications to counter the mass media’s “prevailing attitude in a controversy” (Noelle-Neumann, 1985, p. 80). This practice reflects Noelle-Neumann’s (1974) early thinking: “. . .many of them [hard cores] may manage to support their opinions by selecting out ...media which confirm their views” (p. 49). Rokeach’s (1960) concept of “cognitive narrowing” hypothesizes that . ..people often selectively avoid contact with stimuli, people, events, books, etc., that threaten the validity of their ideology or proselyte for competing ideologies. . .A person may expose himself only to one point of view in the press, selectively choose his friends and associates solely or primarily on the basis of compatibility of systems, selectively avoid contact with those who adhere to different systems, and ostracize renegades (pp. 48-49). 22 lib-III, 1.. 715...... . ’ Groups may practice narrowing by screening media, “publishing lists of taboo books,” and similar tactics (Rokeach, 1960, p. 118). Cognitive narrowing is similar to the selective avoidance and bolstering processes hypothesized by dissonance theory (Abelson, 1959, 1968; Festinger, 1957, 1964; Kiesler, Collins, & Miller, 1969). The following section summarizes research on the “selective exposure” hypothesis. Selective Exposure. Studies of selective exposure to communication have been conducted since the hypothesis was first proposed. Nevertheless, there is little agreement on whether the phenomenon actually exists (Cotton, 1985; Freedman & Sears, 1965; Frey, 1986; Katz, 1968; Sears, 1968; Sears & Freedman, 1967). Early research found little evidence for selective exposure, despite its intuitive appeal (McGuire, 1968). However, these studies were often methodologically flawed in a number of ways. Many considered only two levels of dissonance (low vs. high), rather than the three levels (low, moderate, and high) Festinger (1957) proposed (Cotton, 1985; Frey, 1986; Rhine, 1967). Furthermore, the induction of dissonance was typically assumed, rather than measured (Brehm & Cohen, 1962; Brock, 1965; Cotton, 1985; Mills, 1968). Finally, subjects were typically limited in the amount and scope of consonant or dissonant information from which to select (Cotton, 1985 ; Frey, 1986; Mills, 1968). Researchers have found greater evidence for selective information seeking than for the selective avoidance of messages (Brehm & Cohen, 1962; Brock, 1965; Cotton, 1985; Freedman & Sears, 1965; Sears, 1968; Sears & Freedman, 1967). Similar findings have been reported in the mass communication literature (Atkin, 1985; Berelson, 1948; Hyman & Sheatsley, 1947; Katz, 1968; Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1964), leading some to 23 theorize that audiences primarily seek out consonant information (Atkin, 1985; Freedman & Sears, 1965; Klapper, 1964, 1967; Sears, 1968; Sears & Freedman, 1967). However, several recent studies Show that religious conservatives do actively avoid media content incompatible with their beliefs. Most avoid sexually explicit content, and many avoid violent fare as well (Buddenbaum, 2001; Chamberlain, 1987; Hamilton & Rubin, 1992; Jackson-Beeck, 1977; McFarland, 1996; Paik & Marzban, 1995; Stout & Buddenbaum, 1996; Stout, Scott, & Martin, 1996; Tankard & Harris, 1980; Umble, 1990; Warren, 2001). These groups typically consider the mass media “hostile” to their faith (Buddenbaum, 2001; Ferré, 1985; Haynes, 2000; Mans, 1990; Pippert, 1990; Schultze, 1996, 1990b; Wildmon, 1985). Members of strict groups cite objectionable content more frequently than any other reason for their selective mass media use (Buddenbaum, 2001; Chamberlain, 1987; Gantz & Kowalewski, 1979; Hamilton & Rubin, 1992; McFarland, 1996). Alternative Media Use. Not only do strict religious group members selectively avoid the mass media, but they often choose to expose themselves to “alternative” media reflecting their own points of view (Apostolidis, 2000; Bourgault, 1985; Buddenbaum, 1981; Erickson, 1992; Hill, 1983; Litman & Bain, 1989; McFarland, 1996; Parker, Barry, & Smythe, 1955; Tamney & Johnson, 1984). This practice contributes to an imbalanced communication flow out of these groups (D. M. Kelley, 1972). Strict groups are the largest producers of religious media. These groups operate extensive publishing houses (Altholz, 1985; Board, 1990; Ferré, 1990; D. M. Kelley, 1972; Schement & Stephenson, 1996; Schultze, 1996; Waters, 2001). They also run cable TV networks (Bourgault, 1985; Ersoz, 1998; Hoover, 1990) and the majority of non- 24 commercial broadcasting stations (Erickson, 1992; Ersoz, 1998; Hadden, 1990; Hill, 1983; Melton, Lucas, & Stone, 1997; Schultze, 1990a; Voskuil, 1990; Wuthnow, 1990). In addition, they produce recorded music (Gill, 1990; Howard, 1992; Romanowski, 1990, 2000), home videos (E. Johnson, 1998; Mookas, 1998; Warren, 2002) and websites (Bunt, 2000; Holland, 2002; Newey, 1996; Soukup, Buckley, & Robinson, 2001) to spread their messages. Unfortunately, most Spiral of Silence research considers only the tenor of the “mass” media, downplaying or ignoring the role of alternative media sources (Baldassare & Katz, 1996; Glynn & McLeod, 1984; Moy, Domke, & Stamm, 2001; Neuwirth & Frederick, 2004; Salmon & Neuwirth, 1990; Scheufele, 1999). This is most likely due to Noelle-Neumann’s (1985; 1989; 1993) emphasis on the effects of “trend-setting” or “influential” (mass) media. However, Tichenor and Wackman’s (1973) study suggests that alternative media may be the more influential, depending on the community and the issue being addressed. In their study, users of “suburban” media (a local newspaper) were compared with those who used “metropolitan” media (newspapers and television newscasts). Both the “tenor of the media” and the perceived “climate of opinion” on a controversial issue were “Sharply” different, depending on which mix of media individuals used (Tichenor & Wackman, 1973). Dual Climate of Opinion. Noelle—Neumann considers television a particularly influential medium (Noelle-Neumann, 1985, 1993). Therefore, one would expect the average television viewer to take tolerant attitudes toward social and moral issues, at least publicly. Nevertheless, religious television audiences vigorously oppose premarital sex, 25 extramarital sex, homosexuality, and abortion rights, across demographic groups (Cotugno & Wuthnow, 1984; Gerbner, Gross, Hoover, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1984; Gross, 1990; Hoover, 1990). These viewers may experience a “dual climate of Opinion,” since their Opinions and those “dominant among media journalists diverge” (Noelle-Neumann, 1993, p. 168). Kelley (1972) gives two complementary reasons for this phenomenon. First, religious TV viewers’ selective exposure has both limited their perception of the collective climate (Rokeach, 1960) and has provided them an alternative perspective on social reality (Moscovici & Faucheux, 1972). This is what he means by “a flood of outgoing messages that swamps any incoming ones” (D. M. Kelley, 1972, p. 81). Second, interpersonal communication with similar others is greater for members of strict groups. Kelley (1972) continues, “A virtual flood of outgoing communications would be matched by a high degree of reverberance within. That is, members would be continually giving and receiving messages among themselves about the group’s goals, its daily life, the progress of other members, and so on” (p. 58). Lazarsfeld and his associates (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, & Gaudet, 1968) noted the same two processes in their pioneering election study. They discovered that the mass media were not as powerful as Noelle-Neumann (1973) believes, since fully half the voters they studied never changed their voting intention in the six months prior to the election. Two characteristics that these “constants” had in common were selective exposure to the mass media and stronger interpersonal networks. They remark: While the individual preserves his security by sealing himself Off from propaganda which threatens his attitudes, he finds those attitudes reinforced in his contacts with other members of his group. Because of 26 their common group membership, they will share similar attitudes and will exhibit similar selective tendencies (Lazarsfeld et al., 1968, p. xxxii). They assume that an individual’s degree of group commitment determines the relative weight that a person gives to mass versus interpersonal communication. Elihu Katz and Lazarsfeld (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1964) state that “individual opinions, attitudes, habits and values” are anchored in a person’s reference groups. Therefore, the mass media can exert only indirect influence, since interpersonal communication serves to “counteract or reinforce their message” (Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1964, p. 45; see also Noelle- Neumann, 1985). Summary The social psychological and communication literatures reviewed above support Dean Kelley’s (1972) three traits of group strictness. These same three traits are also clearly visible in Noelle—Neumann’s writings on the “hard core”. She states: Unlike the members of the avant-garde, a hard core can turn its back to the public, can close itself completely off when it finds itself in public with strangers, can encapsulate itself like a sect and orient itself to the past or to the most distant future (Noelle-Neumann, 1993, p. 170). Strict groups’ doctrinal absolutism means that members consider public opinion on an issue to be irrelevant. The group effectively “turns its back to the public” (Noelle- Neumann, 1993, p. 170). Kelley (1972) states: “Not only is theirs the only interpretation, but it explains everything. ..the faithful. . .are simply not interested in what, in their view, can only be error” (pp. 79-80). Therefore, the threat of isolation does not affect them (Noelle-Neumann, 1991, 1993, 1995). 27 The strict conformity requirements within exclusivist groups ensure that members are more influenced by group than collective pressure. The stigma aroused by members’ distinctive lifestyles “may redound to the reinforcement of social strength by increasing the cost of belonging, heightening the demand upon members, raising the validation of the meanings carried by the group” (D. M. Kelley, 1972, p. 80). Strict groups tend to emphasize “traditional” customs and morality. In Noelle-Neumann’s words (1993), the group “encapsulates itself. . .and orients itself to the past or to the most distant future” (p. 170). Finally, the fanaticism with which exclusivist groups communicate their message effectively insulates them from public Opinion. Kelley states: For the outsider who has his own religious views, which he feels are entitled to some consideration and respect, it is disillusioning to discover that the fanatic is not really interested in what he has to say. There is no genuine give-and-take of discussion; at best it is a disputation, in which his views are given only the attention needed to refute them (D. M. Kelley, l972,p.81) This missionary zeal allows the group to “close itself completely off when it finds itself in public with strangers” (Noelle-Neumann, 1993, p. 170). Indeed, members “refuse to be silenced, even at the price of suffering or death” (D. M. Kelley, 1972, p. 81). A second passage describing the hard core also demonstrates Kelley’s three traits of group strictness: These findings suggest that, after a lengthy struggle, a minority faction may be reduced to a hard core of persons who are not prepared to conform, to change their opinions, or even to be silent in the face of public opinion. Some members of this group may get accustomed to isolation, and many of them may manage to support their opinions by selecting out persons and media which confirm their views (Noelle-Neumann, 1974, pp. 48-49). 28 Doctrinal absolutism means that members are unwilling to compromise with “error” — they “are not prepared. . .to change their opinions” (Noelle-Neumann, 1974, p. 48). Group Conformity teaches members to welcome social isolation, ridicule and persecution as proof of the truth of their message (Straw, 2001). These persons “are not prepared to conform” to social pressure (Noelle-Neumann, 1974, p. 48). As Noelle- Neumann observes, “Some members of this group may get accustomed to isolation” (p. 49). Finally, group members’ fanaticism means they “are not prepared. .. to be silent in the face of public opinion” (Noelle-Neumann, 1974, pp. 48—49). The above passage also supports Kelley’s (1972) hypotheses Of an imbalanced flow of communication out of the group (including their own media) as well as a greater flow within the group: “. ..many of them may manage to support their opinions by selecting out persons and media which confirm their views” (Noelle-Neumann, 1974, p. 49). It is unlikely that Kelley and Noelle-Neumann borrowed from each other, since their theories appeared roughly simultaneously (1972, 1973). Therefore, it is striking how similar Kelley’s definition of group strictness is to Noelle-Neumann’s concept of the hard core. Hypotheses and Research Questions The Spiral of Silence literature states that individuals scan both their immediate social environment and the mass media to determine whether their views on controversial social issues are in the majority or are gaining support. If either is the case, individuals should be confident and willing to publicly express their Opinions. On the other hand, those whose views are in the minority or are losing support should fall silent (Noelle- 29 Neumann, 1974, 1991, 1993). Empirical support for these propositions has been mixed, however (Glynn, Hayes, & Shanahan, 1997; Katz, 1983; Salmon & Kline, 1985; Scheufele & Moy, 2000). Other research suggests that individuals’ perceptions of opinion distributions, rather than the actual distribution, most directly influence their willingness to publicly express an Opinion (Glynn & Park, 1997; Kennamer, 1990; Price & Allen, 1990; Salmon & Kline, 1985; Salwen, Lin, & Matera, 1994; Scheufele & Moy, 2000). The following four hypotheses test the effects of actual and perceived opinion climates on individuals’ opinion expression behavior. HI: Individuals holding a majority opinion on a social issue will be more willing to publicly express their opinion than will individuals holding a minority opinion. H2: Individuals who perceive that they hold a majority opinion on a social issue will be more willing to publicly express their opinion than will individuals who perceive that they hold a minority opinion. H3: Individuals whose opinion on a social issue is gaining social support will be more willing to publicly express their opinion than will individuals whose opinion is losing social support. H4: Individuals who perceive that their opinion on an issue is gaining social support will be more willing to publicly express their opinion than will individuals who perceive that their opinion is losing social support. Noelle-Neumann (1993) states that opinions can be expressed behaviorally as well as verbally. In either case, the means of expression must be sufficiently public to make one’s fear of social isolation salient. Although these propositions have only been tested a few times (Donsbach & Stevenson, 1984; Salmon & Neuwirth, 1990; Salmon & Oshagan, 1990; Scheufele & Eveland, 2001), the results suggest that mode of expression can affect individuals’ willingness to give their opinions on an issue. This may be 30 evidence of individual differences in commitment to one’s beliefs (Gerard, 1968; Glynn & Park, 1997; Kiesler, 1968). It may also be evidence that other fears (e. g., fear of public speaking, confrontation, or appearing ignorant) are more salient to opinion expression than a fear of social isolation (Salmon & Neuwirth, 1990; Salmon & Oshagan, 1990). The following hypothesis tests this thesis. H5: Individuals will be more willing to publicly express their opinion the less directly confrontational the means of expression. The Spiral of Silence hypothesizes a Single climate of opinion, created by the media - at least most of the time. Occasionally, a “dual climate” is created when “the climate of opinion among the people and that dominant among media journalists diverge” (Noelle-Neumann, 1993, p. 168). Nevertheless, several researchers have shown that individuals are capable of distinguishing multiple opinion climates, each having different points of reference (Glynn & Park, 1997; Oshagan, 1996; Salmon & Neuwirth, 1990; Salmon & Oshagan, 1990). Therefore, the following hypothesis is advanced. H6: Individuals will be able to distinguish between social opinion climates and the climates of their reference groups. Noelle-Neumann’s early research revealed that certain individuals were more likely to be silenced than others. These included individuals with lower incomes, the less educated, rural residents, older persons, women and ethnic minorities (Noelle-Neumann, 1973, 1993). However, these are the same persons who tend to affiliate with strict religious groups (Hoge, 1979; Iannaccone, 1994, 1997; D. M. Kelley, 1972). If Kelley (1972) is correct, these persons should be less likely to be silenced than others. Therefore, the following hypothesis is advanced. H7: Members of socially disadvantaged groups will be less willing to publicly express their opinion than will other individuals. 31 The Spiral of Silence holds that members of the hard core will be unaffected by a threat of social isolation (Noelle-Neumann, 1974, 1991, 1993). Noelle-Neumann (1974, p. 48) states, “. . .after a lengthy struggle, a minority faction may be reduced to a hard core of persons who are not prepared to conform” to majority opinion. Noelle-Neumann’s (1974; 1991; 1993) discussion of the hard core suggests that membership in this group varies by social issue. However, this notion has not been directly tested. Therefore, the following research question is advanced: RQI: Is the hard core issue-specific? Kelley (1972) characterizes Strict religious groups by three traits: doctrinal absolutism, strong in-group conformity, and alternative communication patterns. Noelle- Neumann (1974; 1993) states that the hard core is also characterized by these three traits. Therefore, it appears likely that members of strict religious groups may be a particular type of opinion hard core. The following hypotheses test this conjecture. H8: Members of strict religious groups will be more willing to publicly express their opinion on a social issue than will other individuals. H9: Members of strict religious groups who perceive that they hold a minority opinion on a social issue will be more willing to publicly express their opinion than will other individuals. H10: Members of strict religious groups who perceive that their opinion on an issue is losing social support will be more willing to publicly express their opinion than will than will other individuals. Kelley (1972) states that members of exclusivist groups will perceive public opinion as irrelevant, since they believe that only their group possesses the “truth” (see also Rokeach, 1960; Rokeach & Restle, 1960). This idea is echoed by Noelle-Neumann 32 (1993, p. 170), who states that the hard core “can turn its back to the public”. The following hypotheses test this notion. H11: Members of strict religious groups will accurately perceive majority social opinion on a given social issue. H12: Members of strict religious groups will take their group ’s position on a given social issue. Some research indicates that members of strict religious groups reject the mass media’s perspective on social issues because they perceive it to be “hostile” to their beliefs (Buddenbaum, 2001; Ferré, 1985; Giner-Sorolla & Chaiken, 1994; Gunther, 1992; Haynes, 2000; Schmitt, Gunther, & Liebhart, 2004; Schultze, 1996; Wildmon, 1985). The following hypothesis tests this idea. H13: Members of strict religious groups will evidence a “hostile media perception. ” Kelley’s (1972) analysis of strict religious groups indicates that committed members may possess unique personality traits (see also Rokeach, 1960) and have distinctive communication patterns. However, it is unclear whether opinion hard cores also possess these traits. The following research questions investigate this possibility further. RQ2: What is the demographic profile of the hard core? RQ3: How do the hard core 's perceptions of reference group support for their opinions differ from other individuals ’ perceptions? ‘ RQ4: How do the hard core ’s media use patterns differ from other individuals’ usage? Noelle-Neumann (1993) continues, “The other possibility is that the hard core Simultaneously feels itself to be an avant-garde” (p. 170). However, research into 33 exclusivist religious groups indicates that this is not necessarily the case. Therefore, the following research question is advanced. RQ5: Do members of strict religious groups believe that their view on a given social issue will eventually become the majority opinion? Kelley’s (1972) three traits of group strictness have traditionally been studied in isolation from one another. These include studies of religious dogmatism (Kemp, 1957; Rokeach, 1956, 1960), authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1981; Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992; Laythe, Finkel, Bringle, & Kirkpatrick, 2002) or fundamentalism (Altemeyer & Hunsberger, 1992; Emerson, 1996; Laythe et al.,.2002); religious reference group studies (Charters & Newcomb, 1958; Jackson & Hunsberger, 1999; H. H. Kelley, 1955; A. E. Roberts, Koch, & Johnson, 2001); and the influences of religious media (Cotugno & Wuthnow, 1984; Gerbner etal., 1984). However, the relative impact of each of these traits on members’ opinions, and their willingness to express them, is unknown (Csikszenthmihalyi, 1991; Glynn & McLeod, 1985; Katz, 1983; Salmon & Kline, 1985). Therefore, the following research questions are advanced: RQ6: How well does religious fundamentalism relate to individuals' opinions on a social issue? RQ7: How well does religious fitndamentalism relate to individuals’ willingness to express an opinion on a social issue? RQ8: How well does religious involvement relate to individuals ’ opinions on a social issue ? RQ9: How well does religious involvement relate to individuals' willingness to express an opinion on a social issue? RQIO: How well does religious media use relate to individuals' opinions on a social issue ? RQI I : How well does religious media use relate to individuals' willingness to express an opinion on a social issue? 34 RQIZ: Does group strictness, religious fundamentalism, religious involvement, or religious media use best predict individuals’ opinions on a social issue? RQ13: Does group strictness, religious fundamentalism, religious involvement, or religious media use best predict individuals ’ willingness to express an opinion on a social issue? 35 Chapter 2: Method Sample. The hypotheses and research questions outlined in the last chapter were tested using a purposive sample of religious congregations in Southwestern Michigan. Protestant Christian groups were selected, for three reasons: 1) few non-Christian religious groups were available in the sample area; 2) Christian groups within the sample area were considerably larger than those of other faiths, thereby increasing the likelihood of locating “hard core” members within them; and 3) the study included a measure of religious fundamentalism specific to Protestant Christianity (see Appendix A). A total of 12 churches within a 20-mile radius were contacted over a six-month period. Every effort was made to include at least two congregations from each region of Kelley’s (1972) “exclusivist-ecumenical gradient” - exclusivist, ecumenical, and near the “ecumenical hurdle” (p. 90). Hoge and Roozen’s (1979a) expert ratings were used to more accurately place groups along the continuum. The groups contacted were an Assembly of God, a Church of the Nazarene, and an Independent Baptist Church (“exclusivist”); an Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and an American Baptist Church (at the “ecumenical hurdle”); and three United Methodist Churches, two Presbyterian Churches (USA), one United Church of Christ - Congregationalist, and an Episcopal Church (USA) (“ecumenical”). Following Jelen (1991; 1992), letters were sent to the pastor or priest of each congregation explaining the project and asking for his/her church’s participation. Those who did not respond were contacted by telephone. In some churches, the pastor or priest Stated that he/she was required to consult with a lay committee to secure permission to participate in the project. Seven of the 12 churches contacted initially agreed to 36 participate in the project. Prior to data collection, however, two churches withdrew their consent and could not be persuaded to reconsider. The author visited the five participating churches between July and November 2005. In four of the churches (Assembly of God, Church of the Nazarene, Independent Baptist and Episcopal), the visit occurred during a regular Sunday morning worship service. The pastor or priest of each church would introduce the researcher during the “announcements” period of the service and ask the congregation to cooperate. The researcher would explain the general nature of the project (to investigate the relationship between faith, the media and public opinion) and assured members that their responses would be completely confidential. The survey instruments were distributed to members either in the church bulletins or as they left the services (see Chamberlain, 1987; J elen, 1991; Jelen, 1992). One week later, the pastor/priest was contacted again and asked to remind congregants to complete and return the surveys if they had not already done so. This was intended to increase overall response rates. In one church (United Methodist), the author was only permitted to survey members of the finance committee. Since the members of this committee are likely to differ from the average parishioner, their responses were excluded from final analysis (8 persons total). The surveys included stamped envelopes bearing a university address. For each congregation, the stamps used on the return envelopes were different. This permitted easy sorting of responses without having to add a survey item. No other identifiers were used on the survey instruments or the envelopes. 37 Four of the 12 churches initially contacted provided congregation-level data, for a group response rate of 33.3%. A total of 440 surveys were distributed to these churches, and 245 usable responses were received. This resulted in an individual-level response rate of 55.7%. Both Chamberlain (1987) and Jelen (1991; 1992) used similar methodologies, with comparable response rates (59.7% and 56.3%, respectively). This study’s response rates by congregation were as follow: Assembly of God, 47.6%; Church of the Nazarene, 57.4%; Episcopal Church (USA), 52.6%; Independent Baptist Church, 56.8%. These group response rates are similar to previous mail surveys of Episcopalians (60.1%) (Roof, 1978), Catholics (“approximately 60%”) (M. R. Welch, Johnson, & Pilgrim, 1990, p. 188), and the Reformed Church in America (44.2%) (Nemeth & Luidens, 1989). Issues Studied. The survey items were constructed to measure respondents’ demographic background, religious background, current religious affiliations, mainstream and religious media consumption patterns, and their perceptions of the climate of opinion on two social issues: abortion and homosexuality. These issues were chosen because they are both “emotionally charged and morally loaded” topics (Noelle-Neumann, 1989, p. 26). They also received considerable media coverage during the course Of data collection. Abortion rights were in the news because of two vacancies on the United States Supreme Court; since President Bush appointed prospective Justices widely believed to hold pro-life positions (Kirkpatrick, 2005; Stolberg, 2005; Toner, 2005). Homosexuality also made national news, since many States were enacting legislation concerning same-sex marriages (Goldscheid, 2005; Jones, 2005). In addition, several Christian denominations — including the Episcopal Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the United Church of Christ and the United 38 Methodist Chuch — debated official policies regarding same sex unions and the ordination of gays and lesbians to leadership positions (Anonymous, 2005a, 2005b; Kareem, 2005). Therefore, each of these issues should be highly salient, making the “pressure” of public opinion (Noelle-Neumann, 1993, p. 228) especially powerful. National opinion data Show that 23.5% of the public supports legal abortion “under any circumstances,” 12.8% support it “in most circumstances,” and another 41.3% support it “only in a few circumstances.” On the other hand, 22.4% of the public believes that abortion should be “illegal in all circumstances” (Gallup Organization, 2006). These data demonstrate that over half (54.1%) of the public takes moderate stances on this issue Table 1: Abortion Issue (National Opinion Data) Do you think abortion should be legal under any circumstances, legal only under certain circumstances, or illegal in all circumstances? [Respondents who replied, “legal only under certain circumstances” were probed: DO you think abortion should be legal in most circumstances or only in a few circumstances?] (Source: Gallup Organization, 2006) Sample Year 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 Meana 3.09*** 2.90 2.78 2.86 2.92 3.00** Standard Deviation 1.56 1.53 1.44 1.48 1.52 1.57 (Sample Size) (981) (1278) (803) (994) (984) (975) Sample Year 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Meana 3.02** 2.78 2.81 2.81 2.74 Standard Deviation 1.54 1.55 1.50 1.51 1.52 (Sample Size) (995) (992) (995) (990) (985) aMean opinion, transformed to a five-point scale, where 1 = “illegal in all circumstances,” 2 = “legal only in a few circumstances,” 3 = “legal under only certain circumstances,” 4 = “legal in most circumstances,” and 5 = “legal under any circumstance.” These data are based on responses to the probe question — scale point “3” is provided for reference purposes. Data were collected from a national random telephone sample. Significance tests (Games-Howell) were performed on the mean differences between 2005 data and earlier sample years. *** =p < .001, ** = p < .01, * =p < .05. 39 (i.e., “legal under only certain circumstances”). Furthermore, the percentage of extreme “pro-choice” (23.5%) or “pro-life” (22.4%) positions within the general public is statistically equivalent (see Table 1). Even so, public opinion on abortion has grown more conservative over six of the past ten years (see Table 1). In fact, the “social opinion climate” in 2005 (M = 2.74) was significantly more conservative than it was in 1995 (MD = -.35, p < .001), 2000 (MD = - .26, p < .01), or 2001 (MD = -.28, p < .01). Much of the shift has been from the extreme “pro-choice” position (down 10.4% since 1995) to the extreme “pro-life” position (up 8.7% since 1995) (Gallup Organization, 2006). National opinion data also show that 57.6% of the public believes that homosexuality is “always wrong,” and another 4.7% believes that it is “almost always wrong.” On the other hand, 30.8% of the public believes that homosexuality is “not wrong at all,” and another 6.9% believes that it is “wrong only sometimes” (Davis & Smith, 2005). These data demonstrate that public opinion is polarized on this issue — just 11.6% of the public takes either of the more “moderate” stances above. In fact, over half (57.6%) of the public supports the extreme “anti-gay” position - a figure nearly double that for the extreme “pro-gay” (30.8%) position (see Table 2). Nevertheless, public Opinion on homosexuality has steadily grown more liberal over the past ten years (see Table 2). In fact, the “social Opinion climate” in 2004 (M = 2.49) was significantly more liberal than it was in 1994 (MD = .33, p < .001). Much of the shift has been from the extreme “anti-gay” position (down 8.9% since 1994) to the extreme “pro-gay” position (up 7.5% since 1994) (Davis & Smith, 2005). 40 Table 2: Homosexuality Issue (National Opinion Data) What is your opinion about sexual relations between two adults of the same sex -— do you think it is always wrong, almost always wrong, wrong only sometimes or not wrong at all? (Source: Davis & Smith, 2005) Sample Year 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 Meana 2.16*** 2.36 2.44 2.44 2.58 2.49 Standard Deviation 1.73 1.80 1.82 1.82 1.86 1.84 (Sample Size) (1884) (1784) (1753) (1697) (884) (868) Mean opinion, transformed to a five-point scale, where 1 = “always wrong,” 2 = “almost always wrong,” 4 = “wrong only sometimes,” and 5 = “not wrong at all.” Data were collected from personal interviews with a national random sample. Significance tests (Games—Howell) were performed on the mean differences between 2004 data and earlier sample years. *** = p < .001, ** =p < .01, * = p < .05. Clearly, the public perceives the issues of abortion and homosexuality very differently. Although most persons take moderate positions on abortion, few take moderate positions on homosexuality. Furthermore, the “extreme” opinion groups are about equal in Size for the abortion issue, but the extreme “anti-gay” faction is nearly twice the Size of its “pro-gay” counterpart. Furthermore, the public Opinion trend is more conservative on abortion, but more liberal on homosexuality. There are several likely explanations for these differences. One is that the nature of the surveys themselves may have produced a greater “social desirability” response bias in the telephone surveys (abortion issue) than in the personal interviews (homosexuality issue) (Holbrook, Green, & Krosnick, 2003; Rockwood, Sangster, & Dillman, 1997). Therefore, respondents would have been more likely to give moderate responses to the abortion item than to the homosexuality item. In addition, the nature of the actual survey items may have produced a greater number of “moderate” responses on the abortion issue (Davis & Smith, 1992; Krosnick, 1999). This is because the abortion item was actually a two-part question. Therefore, 41 respondents may have initially been more willing to take the mid-range response (“legal under only certain circumstances”) than either of the polar extremes. Nevertheless, the follow-up question forced them to choose a position more moderate than the poles, but away from the center of the scale (Gallup Organization, 2006). The homosexuality item also offered respondents two positions more moderate than the polar extremes, but contained no mid-range response Option (Davis & Smith, 2005). In fact, using four-point scales for each of the issues produces similar opinion distributions overall. Specifically, nearly two-thirds of the public takes right—of—center positions on each issue (63.8% for abortion, 62.3% for homosexuality), while a little over a third takes left-of-center positions (36.2% for abortion, 37.7% for homosexuality). The major difference between the issues is how skewed each distribution is toward the polar extremes. Public Opinion on homosexuality (SD = 1.81), as noted above, is significantly more polarized than public opinion on abortion (SD = 1.52, p < .001). The survey items also differed in the nature of the question being asked. For one item, respondents were asked was whether abortion Should be legal or illegal. For the other item, respondents were asked whether homosexuality was morally right or wrong. Individuals may well believe that abortion is morally wrong, but still support others’ legal right to have the procedure if they so choose (Henshaw & Martire, 1982; Luker, 1984; Scott, 1989). An item gauging public perceptions of the morality of abortion would be more appropriate for testing the Spiral of Silence (Noelle-Neumann, 1985). However, national opinion trend data using such an item is currently unavailable. In addition to the above considerations, public perceptions of abortion and homosexuality may diverge as a result of the way each issue is framed in the media 42 (Entrnan, 1993; Goffman, 1974; Nelson & Oxley, 1999; Nelson, Oxley, & Clawson, 1997). “Pro-choice” advocates typically frame the abortion issue in terms of biology and women’s rights (Ball-Rokeach, Power, Guthrie, & Waring, 1990; Granberg, 1981; Luker, 1984). Likewise, “gay rights” advocates generally frame the homosexuality issue in terms of biology and civil rights (De Cecco & Parker, 1995; Tygart, 2000). Therefore, supporters of either position probably hold their views for similar reasons. On the other hand, “pro-life” advocates usually frame abortion as the murder of innocent children (Baker, Epstein, & Forth, 1981; Ball-Rokeach et al., 1990; Granberg, 1981; Luker, 1984). “Anti-gay rights” advocates typically frame homosexuality as a threat to traditional institutions, particularly marriage and the family (Brooke, 1993; Jones, 2005; Mookas, 1998). Therefore, it is reasonable to expect supporters of these positions probably hold their views for very dijferent reasons. These issue frames may also explain why the Observed Opinion trends on abortion and homosexuality are moving in opposite directions. If “pro-life” advocates have been more successful in their framing attempts than “pro-choice” advocates (Ball-Rokeach et al., 1990), then the media may be supporting their views (Holbert, Shah, & Kwak, 2003; Press & Cole, 1999). Similarly, “gay rights” advocates may have been more successful than their opponents at attracting media attention (De Cecco & Parker, 1995; Wilcox, 2003). Therefore, each of these groups should be emboldened to speak out, Since they have the mass media on their Side. Furthermore, if the abortion issue has successfully been framed as a choice between child murder and women’s privacy, it is reasonable to expect that the public would Side with the “greater” perceived moral good (i.e., saving children’s lives). Conversely, if the homosexuality issue has successfully been framed as 43 a choice between alternative views of marriage and family, then it is reasonable to expect that the public would again Side with the “greater” perceived moral good (i.e., protecting gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender persons from discrimination). This process would continue to “spiral,” producing actual social Opinion change over time (Noelle- Neumann, 1973, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1999). Regardless of the social opinion climate, however, members of strict religious groups should take positions Opposing abortion and homosexuality (Brooke, 1993; Evans, 1997, 2002; Jelen & Wilcox, 2003; Mookas, 1998; Smidt, 1989; Tamney, Johnson, & Burton, 1992; Woodrum, 1988; Yip, 1997, 2004). This is because these persons are theorized to adopt group, versus societal norms (D. M. Kelley, 1972; Rokeach, 1976, 1960). Measures Used. The following section describes the measures used to test the hypotheses and research questions outlined in the last chapter. This review will proceed in the order of the concepts raised in the hypotheses and research questions. Willingness to Express an Opinion. Willingness to express an opinion was determined by three different methods. These measures were then used to test Hypotheses 1-5 and 7-10, as well as Research Questions 7, 9, 11 and 13. The first measure was individuals’ willingness to express a controversial opinion verbally. Noelle- Neumann (1993, p. 17) typically tests this by asking survey respondents to imagine themselves on a “five-hour train ride,” during which a fellow passenger brings up a controversial issue. Respondents are instructed to imagine that the passenger takes a position “diametrically opposed to their own” (p. 18), after which they are asked whether they would be likely to discuss the issue further with that passenger. Several researchers have designed alternative measures to the “train test,” since most Americans are unaccustomed to lengthy train trips (Glynn & McLeod, 1985; Noelle-Neumann, 1994; Salmon & Neuwirth, 1990; Scheufele, 1999). This study uses Scheufele’s measure, since it meets Noelle-Neumann’s (1993; 1994) three conditions for testing the “threat of isolation”. First, it is a commonplace situation. Second, the “public” consists of persons unknown to the respondent. Third, the “public” is large enough to activate respondents’ fears of isolation yet small enough to prevent other factors (such as a fear of public speaking) from confounding the results. Scheufele’s (Scheufele, 1999; Scheufele, Shanahan, & Lee, 2001) method asks sample respondents to imagine themselves at “some kind of social gathering” with persons they do not know. They are instructed to imagine that the discussion of a controversial issue at the gathering leads them to believe that “most people in the group” do not support their point of view. Respondents are then asked how likely they would be to express their own opinion in such a Situation (see Questions 12, 19, Appendix A). A second measure used in this study was individuals’ willingness to express a controversial opiniOn behaviorally, using various methods mentioned in Noelle- Neumann’s writings (1993; 1994). In addition, respondents were also asked to list which actions they have actually taken in the past, since Scheufele and others (2001) found that persons were less likely to give their opinions in real situations than in hypothetical ones (see also Oshagan, 1996; Salmon & Neuwirth, 1990; Scheufele, 1999). The resulting 12 items were used to produce two indices per issue. The first 6 items (concerning respondents’ willingness to express themselves behaviorally) were averaged to form an index of “behavioral willingness”. The second 6 items (concerning 45 individuals’ actual opinion behaviors in the past) were averaged to produce an index of “prior behavioral expression”. These indices demonstrated high internal consistencies. The behavioral willingness index had Cronbach’s alphas (or) of .82 (abortion) and .84 (homosexuality), while the behavioral expression index had alphas of .75 (abortion) and .41 (homosexuality). The low reliability of the homosexuality behavioral expression index is due to low response rates — just 8 respondents stated that they had ever done anything to express their opinions behaviorally. Majority/Illinority Opinion. Noelle-Neumann (1994) consistently portrays social opinion processes as a struggle between “two camps”. Individuals use a “quasi-statistical sense” to determine whether their views are in the “majority” or in the “minority”. TO test this hypothesis, respondents’ own opinions on both issues were solicited. In addition, respondents’ perceptions of the prevailing social opinion (H3, H9, H11) for each issue, and their perceptions of their religious groups’ positions (H12) on each issue were also solicited. The actual social majority opinion (H1, H11) was derived from published national opinion data (see Tables 1 and 2) (Davis & Smith, 2005; Gallup Organization, 2006). The actual majority opinions within respondents’ religious groups (H12) were determined by aggregating individuals’ own Opinion data by group. All abortion items (Questions 7, 8, 10 and 11) were reverse coded to match the scales used on the homosexuality items (Questions 14, 15, 17 and 18). In other words, respondents holding more socially conservative positions on either issue received lower scores than those holding more socially liberal positions. Respondents’ own positions on each issue were subtracted from the actual or perceived majority positions, creating difference scores ranging from —4 to 4. These 46 scores were divided into “two camps” (Noelle-Neumann, 1994). “Majority” opinion holders were operationally defined as those whose own positions either matched or fell within one scale point (i.e., -1 to 1) of the relevant reference climate. This is because individuals’ “quasi-Statistical sense” is not precise - it can only determine the relative Size of the opinion majority or minority (Noelle-Neumann, 1985, 1993, 1994). Similarly, “minority” opinion holders were defined as those who perceived their own positions as falling further than one scale point away (i.e., -2 to —4 or 2 to 4) from the referent majority. The resulting two groups were used to test Hypotheses 1-2, 9 and 11-12. Social Support. The Spiral of Silence states that individuals’ willingness to express an opinion is based on the degree of social support they perceive for their views. The actual social support trend (H3) for each issue was derived from published national opinion data over the past five years (see Tables 1 and 2) (Davis & Smith, 2005; Gallup Organization, 2006). This time frame was chosen Since it matches the one used by. respondents to estimate the future Opinion climates (see below). Public Opinion on abortion was significantly more conservative in 2005 (M = 2.74) than it was in 2000 (MD = -.26, p < .01) (see Table 1). Much of the shift has been away from the extreme “pro-choice” position (“legal under any circumstances,” down 7.3%) to the “pro-life” end of the scale (“legal in only a few circumstances,” up 2.9%; “illegal in all circumstances,” up 4.3%) (Gallup Organization, 2006). Support for the position at the scale midpoint (“legal under only certain circumstances”) fell by 2.9% over the same period. Therefore, respondents holding the two “pro-life” positions were operationally defined to be “gaining social support” for their views. These persons received a score of “2” on the opinion trend scale. Respondents holding the two “pro- 47 choice” positions, or the middle range position, were operationally defined to be “losing 6619’ social support” for their views. These persons received a score of on the opinion trend scale. Public opinion on homosexuality, on the other hand, was slightly more liberal in 2004 (M = 2.49) than it was in 2000 (MD = .05) (see Table 2). Much of the shift has been away from the extreme “anti-gay” position (“always wrong,” down 1.2%) to the extreme “pro-gay” position (“not wrong at all,” up 2.0%) (Davis & Smith, 2005). Mean support for the two “moderate” positions also fell by 0.9% over the same period. Although these Opinion shifts are small, they continue a steady liberalizing trend on the issue (see Table 2). Therefore, respondents holding the two “pro-gay” positions were operationally defined to be “gaining social support” for their views. These persons received a score of “2” on the opinion trend scale. Respondents holding the two “anti-gay” positions, or the middle range position, were operationally defined to be “losing social support” for their views. These persons received a score of “l” on the opinion trend scale. The opinion trend scores for each issue were used to test Hypothesis 3. Respondents’ perceptions of social support for an issue (H4, H10) in “five years’ time” were subtracted from their assessments of current social opinion, creating difference scores ranging from -4 to 4. Those respondents who perceived that future social opinion would either match or fall within two scale points (i.e., -2 to 2) of their own positions were operationally defined to be “gaining social support,” Since they perceived the social majority to be moving toward their views. These persons received a score of “2” on the opinion trend scale. Similarly, those respondents who perceived that future social opinion would fall further than two scale points away (i.e., -3 to -4 or 3 to 4) 48 from their own positions were operationally defined to be “losing social support,” since they perceived the majority to be moving away from their views. These persons received a score of “1” on the opinion trend scale. The opinion trend scores for each issue were used to test Hypotheses 4 and 10. Method of Expression. Hypothesis 5 predicts a greater willingness to express one’s views the less directly confrontational the means of expression. To test this hypothesis, the six items comprising the behavioral willingness scale for each issue were correlated using the Spearman-Rho rank order statistic. The six items comprising the behavioral expression scale for each issue were Similarly correlated. Opinion Climates. Respondents’ perceptions of four separate opinion climates were solicited. These were the prevailing social climate on an issue, the perceived future climate on an issue, the perceived “official” position of one’s religious group on an issue, and the amount of perceived agreement among one’s “five closest friends” on an issue. The first two of these were operationally defined as “social opinion” climates and the last two were defined as “reference group” opinion climates. These climates were used to test Hypothesis 6 and Research Question 3. In addition, respondents’ own opinions were subtracted from the first three of these climates, creating difference scores of —4 to 4. Respondents’ perceptions of their friends’ agreement with their own opinions on each issue were used in their original form, producing scores ranging from O to 5. Both sets of scores for each issue were used to test Research Questions 12-13. Demographic Influences. Hypothesis 7 predicts that members of socially disadvantaged groups will be less willing to express an Opinion than other individuals. For the purposes of this study, “socially disadvantaged” groups are operationally defined 49 as the elderly, women, non-Whites, those with less formal education, and those who perceived themselves as “economically challenged” or “working class” (see Appendix A). Group Strictness. Group strictness scores were derived from Hoge and Roozen’s (Hoge, 1979; Hoge & Roozen, 1979b) expert ratings of Protestant denominations. Hoge and Roozen (Hoge, 1979; Hoge & Roozen, 1979b) operationalized eight dimensions of group strictness mentioned by Kelley (1972; 1978). These dimensions are presented and explained in Appendix B. Hoge and Roozen asked 21 religious experts (church historians, sociologists of religion, denominational leaders, and seminary professors) to rate 17 large Protestant denominations using these eight items. Since these researchers analyzed the items separately, they did not report an alpha level. Therefore, a Cronbach’s alpha was computed for the combined scale, based on Hoge and Roozen’s (Hoge & Roozen, 1979b, p. El 1) reported inter-item correlations. Coefficient alpha (or) is .90, when all eight items are scored in the same direction. Hoge (1979, p. 367) also reported a correlation of .96 between the experts’ ordering of denominations based on the eight items and the order found in Kelley’s (1972, p. 89) “exclusivist-ecumenical gradient.” Hoge and Roozen’s (Hoge, 1979, p. 185) mean expert ratings were assigned to participants in this study, based on their denominational affiliation. These ratings were used in the tests of Hypotheses 8-13, as well as Research Questions 5 and 12-13. “Hostile Media” Perception. Respondents’ perceptions of three presumed indicators of media hostility toward religion (Giner-Sorolla & Chaiken, 1994; Gunther, 1992; Gunther & Chia, 2001; Schmitt et al., 2004) were solicited. These three items were 50 averaged to create a “hostile media perception” (H13) scale. This scale demonstrated a high internal consistency, having an alpha (or) of .83. Opinion “Hard Cores ”. The opinion “hard core” (RQ 1-4) was operationally defined as follows. First, respondents’ own opinions on each issue were subtracted from their perceptions of the relevant social and future opinion climates, resulting in difference scores of —4 to 4 for each climate. Respondents who received scores of “—4” or “4” (i.e., maximum opinion incongruity) on a given issue were then examined for their willingness to speak out on that issue. Only those persons who reported being “very likely” to speak out on a given issue (i.e., a score of “4”) were selected. Individuals whose difference scores were “4” (i.e., perceiving themselves to be more liberal/progressive than society) and whose speaking scores were “4” were defined as the “avant-garde.” Those whose difference scores were “—4” (i.e., perceiving themselves to be more conservative/traditional than society) and whose speaking scores were “4” were defined as opinion “hard cores.” These operational definitions meet both of Noelle-Neumann’s (1974; 1991; 1993) conceptual conditions. First, members of the avant-garde and the hard core must perceive themselves to be in the current or future social opinion minority on an issue. Second, these persons must be completely willing to speak out on that issue -— evidence of their immunity to public opinion pressure. The selection of conservative minorities as “hard cores” and liberal minorities as the “avant- garde” reflect respondents’ perceptions of social opinion, rather than actual Opinion trends (see Noelle-Neumann, 1974, 1991, 1993). Media Use. Respondents were asked to consider the types of mass (“mainstream”) and alternative (religious) media that they use and to report approximately how often they 51 used each type. Data on respondents’ use of television, movies, radio, music and other audio sources, the Internet, newspapers, magazines and books were solicited in a series of 24 items. The first 12 items were averaged to form an index of mass media use, and the second 12 were averaged to form an index of religious media use. The mass media index had an alpha (or) of .73 and the religious media index had an alpha (or) of .81, suggesting high internal consistencies among the items. These indices were used to test Research Questions 4 and 10—13. Religious Fundamentalism. Respondents’ reported belief in five doctrines espoused by members of Christian “fundamentalist” groups (Ammerrnan, 1991; Kellstedt & Smidt, 1991; Torrey, Dixon, Harris, & Meyer, 1988; Woodberry & Smith, 1998) were solicited, as a measure of doctrinal absolutism (D. M. Kelley, 1972, 1978; Rokeach, 1956, 1960). These five items were averaged to form an index of religious fundamentalism. This index demonstrated a very high internal consistency, having an alpha (or) of .91. This index was used to test Research Questions 6-7, 12-13. Religious Involvement. Respondents were asked about their religious group activity, as an indicator of their commitment to these groups (D. M. Kelley, 1972). Religious “involvement” is believed to be broader than simple measures of church attendance (Cornwall, 1987; Davidson & Knudsen, 1977; Hood, Spilka, Hunsberger, & Gorsuch, 1996; M. K. Roberts & Davidson, 1984; K. W. Welch, 1981; White, 1968). Therefore, respondents were also asked to report the number of religious groups to which they belonged and how often they attended these groups. Religious group membership data were transformed to a six-point item to facilitate comparison with the two attendance items. Persons who reported belonging to 52 no religious groups received a score of “0”; those who said they were members of one, two, or three groups received scores of “1,” “2,” and “3,” respectively. Those who reported belonging to four or five religious groups received a score of “4,” and those who said they were members of six or more groups received a score of “5”. The two attendance items and the group membership item were averaged to create a “church involvement” index. This index exhibited a fair level of internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s alpha ((1) of .61 and a standardized item alpha (SI or) of .63. This item’s lower than expected alpha level is likely due to the unusually high church attendance levels among the sample — 91.4% of respondents reported attending once a week or more often. Since group participation levels among the sample were considerably lower than church attendance (just 27.9% reported attending religious groups once a week or more often), the three items did not co-vary sufficiently to produce a higher alpha. Sample Characteristics. The demographic characteristics of sample respondents are presented in Table 3. Those who responded to the survey ranged in age from 18-88 years, with a mean of 57.24 years-The churches sampled were heavily Caucasian in composition, and 95.9% of sample respondents were White. More women than men were observed attending the churches sampled, and women comprised 58.5% of the respondents. The mean educational attainment among sample respondents was “some college,” and most respondents perceived themselves to be in the middle economic class. 53 Rama—o 8&2: u n ...?cflfiflEa: n v cams—o DEBS: n m Emma—O man—83.. u N ...vowcflfino bfiogocooo: u Me .6032. Seaway—wag? n c ....356 832-38 2:8: u m ...oouwov owe—Eu: n v ...eme=8 2:9... u m ...eeoae 628 .32.. u N ...aa 8 .628 a»: 686m: u _6 ...223-eo=.. u m ...88 8%... u N :82? n _ ...eaea. u N ...e_eE.. u _e 3 ohm 3:6. mud and mod ...NZH mw.m e334 oEocoom m fl .m 8N H fim Raw :4” ...:ooé wa.m ”snowman—Om R: co; co; mo; 84 No.“ co; nooam on; we.“ ow." :1 >3 mm; :2 «5280 ...... fl Qwv Suwm omdm 8.5m 8.0m 86m vmfim ow< mm EN 9 Q: R :4 mvm 2 BOO Em: Uméo Z bnEOmm< “magnum 28352 330825 295mm afiafiwefion mas—am "m 035,—. 54 Chapter 3: Results The results of the statistical analyses are summarized below in terms of the study’s hypotheses and research questions. Tables summarizing more comprehensive analyses will be referenced throughout. Hypothesis 1 states that persons holding a majority Opinion on an issue will be more willing to publicly express their views than those holding a minority opinion. Fully 89.2% of respondents actually held majority opinions on the abortion issue, and 84.9% actually held majority opinions on the homosexuality issue. Nevertheless, only abortion opinion majorities were more willing to speak out (p < .001) than minorities (see Table 4). No other significant differences in willingness to express an Opinion or in prior opinion behavior were found. Therefore, Hypothesis 1 receives only limited support. Hypothesis 2 states that persons who perceive that they hold a majority opinion on an issue will be more willing to publicly express their views than those who perceive that they hold a minority Opinion. Just over half (50.8%) of respondents perceived their Opinions on abortion to be in the social majority, and less than half (47.1%) of respondents perceived their opinions on homosexuality to be in the majority. Nevertheless, abortion majorities were actually less willing to behaviorally express their views (p < .001) than minorities (see Table 4). No other significant differences in willingness to express an opinion or in prior opinion behavior were found. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 is not supported. Hypothesis 3 states that persons whose opinions on an issue are gaining social support will be more willing to publicly express their views than those whose opinions are losing support. Although two-thirds (66.8%) of respondents took positions on 55 Table 4: Willingness to Express, by Majority Status (Sample) (Opinion Climate) Actual Social Opinion Willingness to Speak Behavioral Willingness Prior Behavior Perceived Social Opinion Willingness to Speak Behavioral Willingness Prior Behavior Abortion Majority Minority 3.31* * 2.81 (215) (26) 2.59 1.77 (216) (26) 0.26 0.38 (216) (26) 3.19 3.31 (122) (1 17) 2.02 3.04*** ( 122) (1 18) 0.20 0.36 (122) (1 l8) * =p<.05,** =p<.01,*** =p<.001 Homosexuality Majority Minority 3.3 1 3. 14 (203) (36) 2.05 1.83 (203) (36) 0.04 0.08 (203) (36) 3.31 3.25 (1 12) (126) 1.79 2.23 (1 12) (126) 0.04 0.05 (1 12) (126) abortion that were actually gaining social support, nine out of ten (89.1%) respondents took positions on homosexuality that were actually losing support. Persons whose views on abortion were gaining social support were more willing to verbally (p < .001) and behaviorally (p < .001) express their opinions than those whose views were losing support (see Table 5). No significant differences in willingness to express an opinion on homosexuality were found, however. Nor were there any actual differences in prior opinion expression for either issue. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 receives only partial support. 56 Table 5: Willingness to Express, by Social Support (Sample) (Opinion Trend) Actual Opinion Trend Willingness to Speak Behavioral Willingness Prior Behavior Perceived Opinion Trend Willingness to Speak Behavioral Willingness Prior Behavior * =p<.05,** =p<.01,*** =p<.001 Abortion Gaining Losing 3.44* ** 2.88 (161) (80) 2.97* * * 1.56 (162) (80) 0.33 0.18 ( 162) (80) 3.22 3.39 (188) (46) 2.41 3.04 (189) (46) 0.28 0.30 (189) (46) Homosexuality Gaining Losing 3.12 3.30 (26) (213) 2.12 2.00 (26) (213) 0. 12 0.04 (26) (213) 3.3 1 3.28 (154) (79) 1.86 2.37 ( 154) (79) 0.05 0.05 (154) (79) Hypothesis 4 States that persons who perceive that their opinion on an issue is gaining social support will be more willing to publicly express their views than those who perceive that their opinion is losing support. Fully 80.4% of respondents perceived their views on abortion to be gaining social support, and 66.1% perceived their views on homosexuality to be gaining support. Nevertheless, no Significant differences in 57 willingness to express an opinion or in prior opinion expression were found, for either issue (see Table 5). Therefore, Hypothesis 4 is not supported. Hypothesis 5 states that persons will be more likely to express their views on an issue the less directly confrontational the means of Opinion expression. The data suggest that individuals were much more likely to report a willingness to express an opinion than to have actually done SO (Scheufele et al., 2001). Fully 76.5% of respondents reported a willingness to engage in at least one behavior to express their opinion on abortion. However, just 14.8% had ever done so. Similarly, 66.4% of respondents reported a willingness to engage in at least one behavior to express their opinion on homosexuality, but just 3.3% had ever done so. There were clear differences in respondents’ willingness to express an Opinion behaviorally. There were also obvious differences in respondents’ prior Opinion expression behaviors (see Table 6). Furthermore, the rank order in which the issues appear was nearly identical. Although respondents reported a high degree of willingness to be quoted by name in the mass media, they were very unlikely to have ever been quoted. The strong correlations between the other methods suggest that this is evidence of a lack of opportunity to express an opinion, rather than lack of motivation. The overall pattern of findings suggests that the method of Opinion expression does influence persons’ willingness to give their views (Salmon & Oshagan, 1990). Nevertheless, respondents seemed just as willing (and as likely) to express an opinion using more directly confrontational methods as they were using less confrontational ones. Therefore, the Hypothesis 5 is not supported. 58 Table 6: Willingness to Express, by Method (Method of Expression) Behavioral Prior Willingnessa Behaviora Interviewed Live by Media .77*** .71*** Pass Out Literature .75*** 35*“: Use a Bumper Sticker .73*** .26*** Be Quoted by Name in Media .70*** -.01 Attend a Demonstration ,68*** .2540”: .61*** .31*** Wear a Button a . . . . . . . . Spearman-Rho rank-order correlations between wrllrngness to express an opinion or prior opinion behavior for each of the issues. * =p<.05, ** =p<.Ol, *** =p<.001 Hypothesis 6 states that individuals will be able to distinguish between social opinion climates and the climates of their reference groups. The data Show that this is the case. In fact, sample respondents believed that prevailing social opinion on abortion was over a point more liberal than their own Opinions (MD = 1.02, p < .001, see Table 7). They also believed that social opinion on the issue would become a quarter point (MD = .24, p < .001) more liberal over the next five years. On the other hand, respondents believed that their religious groups’ “official” positions on abortion were over a third of a point (MD = -.36, p < .001) more conservative than their own. They also believed that a majority (M = 4.08) of their “five closest friends” agreed with their own positions on the issue. Respondents believed that prevailing social opinion on homosexuality was over a point more liberal than their own positions (MD = 1.08, p < .001, see Table 8). They also 59 ~8.VQN .12.. .—O.Vmu ...; .no. VQH a. em: 8 QB?» mm 2.38%?— coumoaxo now—Ea Mo 8052: 1:25:05 .5 mo “38:: 502d .95 8.3% o. .28:— Do? u v :58:— 353088 N m ...buxzca 8:30:83 u N ...DBEE. b9»: u C 018338.58 a :o 5320 do??? no summon :30 No.8 55, :855 3.820 02.? Face mo E0802? 3:083 5323 .A..moo=8mE=oho >5 .595 Emu—e n m can ...moocsmfisoho 53.18 .825 .35 Emu? u m ...wooesasuxo :98 have: Ewo— 55:: u 3 23m 2:093: a no can? Sud cad S .o and Ed de wmd euom>eaom SE mm.m 3d 84 vw.m Nm.~ team; 93 emmoewczza ESSEOm 18.4 can 9% 40m 83 £2 mum 688m a 82353 mad ooé Ea S .v 2 .v Sum 36 nmecotm Bioobm hm; ms.“ ow." 9: mm; .313 .m Nb; asp—EU 33083 ......ebwé mud Om.m om.m 36 mm.m emd «223m Octagon .438...» vod cad ocd Ed wfim ofim «Eoom 33089” 004 ..cimfim on; 2.4 $4 $10M mod acoEEO :30 2 RN 2 #2 0m :4 new 2 800 Ea: uméo Z 398834 “madam 88¢an EmoOmEm £95m 3322:; 83:50 .82—30 me 2.539qu— K 2:5. 60 SQVQH ...: ._o.v&u ...... .no.vmn ... .00.. o. wears m. 2.09.0900. commw0ax0 .8830 .«o .6050... 3.2.6.0.. xi .8 .35.... 5.02.. .95 .309. o. :38:— b0>e u v :58:— .0..30...Om u m ...».0055 8.3.088: n N ...bBEE. b0? .1. S 0:80 2:09.58 0 ..o .8020 092030850... ..o .538.“ :30 0.0.5 .23 ..mecut... 608—0 02.... 0.0.5 he 30500.? 00300.2. 502.. AL? .0 week... .2... n n ...... ...008u088 bee weeks: n m ...mco...» 933.0 .883: u N ...»..05 303...: u C 0.000. .5093... 0 ..o .302... cod cod cod cod cod Ed cod 0.0320.“ .2...— iixm 8.. 8.. VNN we. 94.. NON 030%...53 .0..o_>e..0m :48... N2 9.... mm... 2.. 8.. mam seam 2 82mg..§ wwd mm... 8..» Dav 344 3.506 em... amazon... n0>.00.0m NN.. we. 94.. N. m... ***ow.m no. «£0.20 33080.. fried 3d omN VNd mod ...m o. .m «0.35 003000.. ***wh.m omN cmN onN mmN mvN ocN «Ecom 3300.9. 8.. on. 00.. w. .. 8.. ***wm.m Nm. «.8830 .50 w. .NN o. N2 8 3 SN 2. 080 Ram 03.82 3.3.03... .395 0:035. Z 3802.5 03.5% Aux—«30880:. 00.355 .8336 he 0.833030.‘ .w 030,—. 61 believed that social opinion on the issue would become over half a point more liberal (MD = .56, p < .001) over the next five years. In addition, respondents believed that their religious groups’ “official” positions on homosexuality were slightly more liberal than their own (MD = .20, p < .05). Nevertheless, they believed that the vast majority (M = 4.34) of their “five closest friends” agreed with their own positions on the issue. These data support Hypothesis 6. Hypothesis 7 states that members of socially disadvantaged groups will be less willing to publicly express their opinions than others. The data indicate that willingness to express an opinion behaviorally was inversely related to age (p < .001) for both issues (see Tables 9 and 10). Willingness to verbally express one’s opinion on homosexuality was also related to gender (p < .01), with women less willing to give their views than men. No other significant demographic differences in willingness to express an issue were found, either verbally or behaviorally, for either issue. Therefore, Hypothesis 7 receives only partial support. Hypotheses 8 states that members of strict religious groups will be more willing to express their opinions on social issues than other individuals. Each respondent was assigned a strictness score for his/her religious group. The score was the mean of Hoge and Roozen’s (Hoge, 1979, p. 185) expert ratings for eight dimensions of group strictness, with three of the items (conservatism, social action, pluralism) reverse-scored to match the remaining five. The mean strictness scores are as follow: Episcopalians (M = 1 .90), Nazarenes (M = 4.69), Independent Baptists (M = 4.76), and members of the Assembly of God (M = 5.30). 62 .8. v a u ...: ..o. v . u ...... .8. v a u .. .8: 9 9......5 .... .8288. 8.32....» .8880 ..0 00050... 8.0.8.8.. ...... ..0 8.8.020 .....0 0.00... 0. .88.... .8? u v :58... 8:30:80 u m ......0....... 8:30.000... u N ......0....... .8?- u .0 0.08 8.00.50. 0 .8 0.00m. 6.0.0.8 .8880 0.88 00.8.0.0. .0 .088 808.0. 0... ..0 808.008.. .8... .80 .8880 030 ...-800.8000. 00038.. 888.80 ..0 8.884.... co..***wm. **w.. m.. ... 2..- mo.- Nor *m .. ......N. no: no: 5.- 0.0.>0..0m 8.... 8..-:3. m.. o.. ......mNr ......VNr 0...- No. 8. mo. No. 3.5.”.- 0.w......>> .0.0.>0..0m. 8.. *m .. ......ON. cor . ..- we: 3. no: mo. 0.. o. .- ...-00.5 0. 9.5.3 8.. ... 8. 8.- 8. 8.- 8.- N. .- 8. .... «0.8080 ”80... 8.. 8.- ...m. .- 8. 8.- .....- ...... .- ...-...... S.- .bémaou 8.2.0 8. . 1.8. S.- 8. 8.- 8. . 8. ...-0.. «8.2080 22.... 8.. 8. 8. 8.- 8. 8. ... «8.8080 0.80 8.. 8.- 8. 8. o... ..m..- 633. 02.00 8.3:... N... 8.- o... .93 080.com. 8.. 8.- 8. :0..- . 8088.. 8.. 8. 8.- 80.. 8.. 8. 0.050 8.. 00... 0 0>0..0m0....>? 0.00% 0.w..00 0.w.80 0.w.80 ..m..00 0.0.0”. .08... 8.... 0>0..0 =....>>.....0......0.....0 08...". .080m 0. 9.09 ..80m. .003. 000... 8.800 0w< mVN u 2 0.058. mam .. .....003 50.2.0 .. 0......- 63 .8. v m u I... .8. v m u ...... .3. v A u .. .00.. 0. $553 0. 800.8000. 8.80.9.0 .8880 .8 0.0050... 8.08.800 x7. .8 80.8.20 .900 080% 0. ...—00.: b9... u v :50...— .0..30..80 u m abs—.8: 883080.... N N 5:00:80 80>: n C 0.08 2:09.50.“ a no 800%.“. .canEm—o COW—«QC mac-nu ocean-a0.— uo 350m ...—9’20.— 05 MO mGOflaoohom 505 E com—:10 :30 .mHGOUGOQth CODRSOD human—Cu m0 =5050..0m ...? 0.00.50 $.80.w $000.. $000.. $.80 0.0.3— .08... 8.... 0>0...0mm...=.38..0..m..08..0 0......"— 8.00m 0. 0.39 ..80m 000m 000m .0880 0$< 3n u 2 88:89 mam .3 £50.02 mam—0.080080: .3 030,—. 64 5o. v m n I... .8. v Q n 1. .8. v a u ,.. .8: 9 32:3 £ 289.88.. 588.56 cacao no £5508 3.2223 xv. Mo “3:520 .95 x39. 9 .38.: be? u v :58:— 323088 n m ...bofi—c: .23088: n N ...boxzcn be? u 3 28... 2:09.58 a :0 ”teams 638:0 cacao 9..on oocouumou .5 380m ”Gaza—o.— 05 .«0 2.2300qu :05 van COEEO =30 .many—came.— congD imam—.00 .«o EnoEmnommfia>>muaocmm8=nua 833m 38m 9 QED doom 2:83:8an 65E 85m 3N n 2 Avis—«my mum—auma 55.8.: u: 033. o 65 5o. v A u 1.... .5. v m u ...... .3. v a u ... .8: 9 :55 m_ 83:83.. 58355 8E 80 .852: E2223 .3 .0 H35:20 .c8 a. m 9 .. .95 2... u v E: .2558 u m 3:5. 532:8. u N .35.... 2.. u z 28... a a h b a a x b ESQ-.58 a so 20qu .2953 cow—3o 9.on 8:288 8 308 Ego—2 05 .3 253383 :05 van .5330 :30 352.0%“: 5953 £338 .8 EsoEanom norm 0043.3? ......mm. co. N7 Evil-N. No. co. *2. mo. 2. c.9555 Rhoggom co; 3.2. we. S. we. ***wN. S. No. *3. mo.- *3. nxmomm 9 mesa? 2: B. S. 2. 2. ......mm- ..8. 8. *3. ...-.3. .bmewaou 2.5:”. 2: 2.- mo- 8. S. 8. *2. ...-e. 2. .5595 555 0041.50. 8.- S. ......wfi- no: 2.- 3.8.. «ES-$80 83:”— 8; 3.- ...E- 8.- 8. no. 8. ..éawcou 38m 004 mo.-***OM. ***VN. ***0m. ***VM. «€02 msomwzom oo.~***bN.- wo.-***NN.-***hm.- «€02 Ewome-mz 84 mo. .....cém. ......im. «622 0:502 8; 3. 8.- 308225 555 Sign. ammaaosaugm 0o; mmoSoEm :8an :uzwnom 43$ :xwuam .wcan .wcoum .wcan .wcoU anm ~33 «602 039:: Sam o>anumw5=59wc=ocmn8:40a 823m fi38.0.. 8 9:5 doom oEmomnescu 65¢ 85m mvml .- Z AuEEamv 5:952 3:358:83 .N_ 935. 66 The data demonstrate that members of strict groups were significantly more willing to verbally express an opinion on the issues of abortion (p < .001) and homosexuality (p < .01) than members of the ecumenical group. They were also significantly more willing to behaviorally express an opinion on abortion (p < .001). No significant differences were observed with regard to respondents’ prior opinion expression behaviors (see Tables 11 and 12). Therefore, Hypothesis 8 receives only partial support. Hypothesis 9 states that members of strict religious groups who perceive that they hold a minority opinion on an issue will be more willing to express their views than other individuals. Slightly over half (52.5%) of respondents from strict groups perceived their opinions on abortion to be in the social minority, and about the same number (51.0%) of respondents from strict groups perceived their homosexuality views to be in the minority. Table 13: Willingness to Express, by Majority Status (Strict Groups) (Opinion Climate) Abortion Homosexuality Strict All Strict All Minority Others Minority Others Perceived Social Opinion Willingness to Speak 3.35 3.17 3.27 3.29 (106) (133) (104) (134) Behavioral Willingness 3.10*** 2.06 2.27 1.84 (107) (133) (104) (134) Prior Behavior 0.34 0.23 0.04 0.05 (107) (133) (104) (134) * =p<.05,** =p<.01, *** =p<.001 67 Furthermore, the abortion minorities were more willing to behaviorally express their views (p < .001) than other sample respondents (see Table 13). No other significant differences in willingness to express an opinion or in prior opinion behavior were found. Therefore, Hypothesis 9 receives only limited support. Hypothesis 10 states that members of strict religious groups who perceive that their opinion on an issue is losing social support will be more willing to express their views than other individuals. Just one in five (21.1%) respondents from strict groups perceived their views on abortion to be losing social support, and slightly over a third (36.3%) perceived their views on homosexuality to be losing support. Nevertheless, strict group members who perceived their views on homosexuality to be losing social support were more willing to behaviorally (p < .001) express their opinions than other respondents (see Table 14). No other significant differences in willingness to express an opinion or in prior opinion behavior were found. Therefore, Hypothesis 10 receives only limited support. Table 14: Willingness to Express, by Social Support (Strict Groups) (Opinion Trend) Abortion Homosexuality Strict All Strict All Losing Others Losing Others Perceived Opinion Trend Willingness to Speak 3.40 3.22 3.28 3.31 (43) (191) (74) (159) Behavioral Willingness 3.00 2.43 245* 1.84 (43) (192) (74) (159) Prior Behavior 0.30 0.28 0.05 0.04 (43) (192) (74) (159) ¥=p<.05,** =p<.01,*** =p<.001 68 Hypothesis 11 states that members of strict religious groups will accurately perceive majority opinion on a given social issue. The actual social opinion mean for the abortion issue was 2.74 (see Table 1). Sample respondents’ mean perception of social opinion was 3.10 (MD = .36, p < .001, see Table 7), and the mean for members of strict groups was 3.09 (MD = .35, p < .001). Therefore, respondents from all groups showed evidence of pluralistic ignorance on the issue, believing the opinion climate to be more liberal than it actually was. The actual social opinion mean for the homosexuality issue was 2.49 (see Table 2). Sample respondents’ mean perception of social opinion was 2.60 (MD = .11, see Table 8), and the sample mean for members of strict groups was 2.63 (MD = .14). Neither of these perceptions is significantly different from the actual social opinion climate. Therefore, Hypothesis 11 is supported for the homosexuality issue, but not for the abortion issue. Hypothesis 12 states that members of strict religious groups will take their group’s position on a given social issue. In fact, these respondents took positions on abortion that they perceived to be a quarter of a point (MD = .25, p < .001) more liberal than their religious groups’ “official” positions. Conversely, they took positions on homosexuality that they perceived to be slightly (MD = -.10, p < .05) more conservative than their religious groups’ positions. By contrast, strict group members’ positions on both issues were over a point (abortion, MD = -l.32, p < .001; homosexuality, MD = -l.48, p < .001) more conservative than their perceptions of the prevailing social climate. Therefore, the data tend to support Hypothesis 12. 69 Hypothesis 13 states that members of strict religious groups will evidence a “hostile media perception”. The data in Tables 11 and 12 support this hypothesis. Group strictness was significantly related to a hostile media perception, at least as defined in this study (p < .001). Research Question 1 asks whether the hard core is issue specific. Based on the operational definitions outlined in the last chapter, this study identified 1 member of the avant-garde and 28 hard-core respondents, or 11.8% of the sample (see Table 15). Hard cores were found in approximately equal numbers for each issue. However, only 17.8% of these persons were opinion “hard cores” on both issues (2.0% of the total sample). Therefore, the data suggest that the hard core is issue specific. Table 15: Avant-Gardes and Hard Cores, by Issue (Sample) Avant- Hard Gardes Cores Both N 1 28 29 Either Issue 0.4% 11.4 11.8 Abortion 0.0 6. l 6. l Homosexuality 0.4 7.3 7.8 Both Issues 0.0 2.0 2.0 Furthermore, the hard core appeared to be concentrated within the “stricter” religious groups, and the sole avant-garde belonged to the “ecumenical” group (see Table 16). Even though these differences were not statistically significant, they did correspond to theoretical predictions (D. M. Kelley, 1972). The avant—garde’s responses have been combined with all other “non-hard cores” in subsequent analyses. 70 Table 16: Hard Cores by Religious Group Assembly Sample Episcopal Nazarene Baptist N 2 4 21 1 28 Either Issue 4.9% 12.9% 12.9% 10.0% 1 1.4% Abortion 2.4 3.2 4.9 0.0 6.1 Homosexuality 2.4 6.5 5.5 10.0 7.3 Both Issues 0.0 3.2 2.5 0.0 2.0 Research Question 2 concerns the demographic profile of the hard core. The hard cores in this sample did not significantly differ from other respondents in terms of race (White), gender (female), education (“some college”) or perceived economic level (“middle class”). Hard cores were nearly a decade younger than other sample respondents (MD = 9.50 years, p < .001), however. Research Question 3 examines the hard core’s perceptions of reference group support for their opinions. Hard cores did not perceive their religious groups’ “official” positions on either issue to be significantly different from their own (abortion, MD = -.27; homosexuality, MD = -.22). In addition, hard cores believed that about four of their “five closest friends” agreed with their own positions on both issues (abortion, M = 3.93; homosexuality, M = 3.88) (see Tables 7 and 8). Other sample respondents believed that their religious groups’ “official” positions on abortion were significantly more conservative than their own (MD = .40, p < .001). Nevertheless, they believed that their groups’ “official” positions on homosexuality reflected their own (MD = -.12). Like the hard cores, other sample respondents believed that about four of their “five closest friends” agreed with their own positions on both issues (abortion, M = 4.09; homosexuality, M = 4.38) (see Tables 7 and 8). 71 Research Question 4 asks about the opinion hard core’s media use patterns. The data reveal that hard cores were heavier consumers of both mass and religious media (see Table 17). They watched religious movies more frequently than other respondents (p < .05). They also listened to both mainstream (p < .05) and religious (p < .05) music radio formats, and to recorded religious music (p < .01) more often than other respondents. No other significant differences were observed. Table 17: Media Use (Sample) (Means) Mainstreama Religiousa Non-HC ’s HC ’s Non-HC ’s HC ’s All Media Types 1.37 1.52 0.84 0.99 TV News 2.58 2.75 0.75 0.96 Entertainment TV 2.38 2.43 1.15 1.43 Newspapers 1.92 1.64 0.53 0.39 Music Radio 1.51 2.14* 1.38 200* Recorded Music 1.26 1.68 1.28 1.93** Books 1.31 1.29 1.43 1.68 Magazines 1.31 1.21 0.69 0.36 Movies 1.15 1.32 0.58 0.93* Talk Radio 1.14 0.93 1.18 1.57 News Websites 0.93 1.07 0.37 0.21 Entertainment Websites 0.59 1.00 0.25 0.18 Other Audio Recordings 0.38 0.57 0.54 0.50 3O = “non-user” of medium, 1 = “monthly use,” 2 = “weekly use,” 3 = “daily use.” * =p<.05, ** =p<.01, *** =p<.001 Research Question 5 asks whether members of strict religious groups believe that their views on a given social issue will eventually become the majority opinion. Members of all three strict groups perceived that social opinion on both issues would become even 72 more liberal than it currently is (abortion, MD = -.25, p < .01; homosexuality, MD = -.54, p < .001). Clearly, these persons did not believe that their views on either issue would eventually become the majority opinion (see Tables 7 and 8). Research Question 6 asks how well the concept of religious “fundamentalism” relates to individuals’ opinions. The more “fundamentalist” respondents perceived that their opinions on abortion were more discrepant (i.e., more conservative, p < .05) from prevailing social opinion than other respondents did (see Table 11). They also perceived greater support for their views on homosexuality from their religious groups (p < .01), as well as their friends (p < .05). No other significant differences were observed. Research Question 7 asks how well religious “fundamentalism” relates to individuals’ willingness to express their opinion on an issue. The data show that more highly “fundamentalist” respondents were more willing (p < .05) to behaviorally express an opinion on abortion than other respondents (see Tables 11 and 12). No other significant differences were observed. Research Question 8 asks how well the concept of religious “involvement” relates to persons’ opinions. The more heavily “involved” respondents were in their religious groups, the more they perceived support for their homosexuality views from those groups (p < .05). No other significant differences were observed. Research Question 9 asks how well religious “involvement” relates to persons’ willingness to express their opinion on an issue. The data show that more “involved” persons were more willing (p < .05) to verbally express an opinion on both issues than other respondents. They were also more willing to express their views (p < .05) on homosexuality behaviorally (see Tables 11 and 12). 73 Research Question 10 asks how well religious media use relates to individuals’ opinions. The data demonstrate that heavier religious media users perceived their views as more discrepant (i.e., more conservative) from both current (p < .001) and future (p < .05) social opinion on the abortion issue. They also perceived greater support for their abortion views from both their religious groups (p < .01) and their friends (p < .01, see Table 11). No significant differences were observed for the homosexuality issue, however (see Table 12). Research Question 11 asks how well religious media use relates to individuals’ willingness to express their opinion on an issue. The data show that heavier religious media users were significantly more willing to express their opinions on both issues, whether verbally (p < .001) or behaviorally (p < .001, see Tables 11 and 12). They were also more likely to have done so (p < .01) for the abortion issue. Research Question 12 asks whether groups’ “strictness,” or individuals’ religious “fundamentalism,” religious “involvement,” or religious media use best predicts persons’ opinions on a given social issue. Therefore, these four factors were entered into an ordinary least squares regression, along with respondents’ demographic variables and mass media use. The independent variables’ partial correlations with the dependent variable (individuals’ own opinions on a given issue) were assessed, and those beta weights that were statistically significant were retained. These were then tested separately until the best combination of predictors, as determined by the model’s R2 value, was selected. The analysis reveals that group strictness was the best predictor of respondents’ attitudes on abortion (see Table 18). Not only is strictness the best predictor of the four 74 indices above, but it is also the best overall predictor of abortion attitudes. The four retained predictors (group strictness, religious fundamentalism, religious media use and perceived economic level) together explain 46% of the variance in persons’ attitudes on abortion. Table 18: Predictors of Own Opinion (Abortion) Retained Variables Coefficients r 13 Church Strictness -.61 -.42*** Religious Media Use -.47 -.28*** Fundamentalism -.48 -.13* Economic Level .21 .10* Adjusted R2 = .46 * =p<.05,** =p<.01,*** =p<.001 A similar analysis reveals that group strictness was also the best predictor of respondents’ attitudes on homosexuality (see Table 19). Not only is strictness the best predictor of the four indices above, but it is also the best overall predictor of homosexuality attitudes. The four retained predictors (group strictness, religious fundamentalism, church involvement and education) together explain 52% of the variance in persons’ attitudes on homosexuality. Research Question 13 asks whether groups’ strictness, or individuals’ fundamentalism, religious involvement, or religious media use best predicts persons’ willingness to express their opinions on a social issue. Therefore, these four factors were entered into an ordinary least squares regression, along with respondents’ opinion climate “difference scores,” demographic variables and mass media use. The independent 75 Table 19: Predictors of Own Opinion (Homosexuality) Retained Variables Coefficients r B Church Strictness -.69 -.54*** Fundamentalism -.55 -. 19* * Education .37 .13* Church Involvement -.09 -.1 1* Adjusted R2 = .52 * =p<.05,** =p<.01,*** =p<.001 variables’ partial correlations with the three dependent variables (respondents’ willingness to speak out on a given issue, willingness to express an opinion behaviorally and prior opinion expression behavior) were individually assessed, and those beta weights that were statistically significant were retained. These were then tested separately until the best combination of predictors, as determined by the model’s R2 value, was selected. The analyses reveal that religious media use was the best of the four indices studied at predicting respondents’ willingness to express an opinion on the abortion issue, across all three measures (see Table 20). The three predictors retained in the first analysis (religious media use, perceived opinion congruity with one’s religious group and age) together explain 15% of the variance in persons’ willingness to verbally express an opinion on abortion. The three predictors retained in the second analysis (church strictness, religious media use and age) together explain 19% of the variance in persons’ willingness to express an opinion on abortion behaviorally. Only religious media use predicted individuals’ prior abortion opinion expression, explaining 4% of the variance. 76 Table 20: Predictors of Willingness to Express (Abortion) Retained Variables Coefficients r B Willingness to Speak Religious Media Use .32 .26*** Pcvd. Church Congruity .26 .20** Age -. l 8 -. 15* Adjusted a2 = .15 Behavioral Willingness Age -.35 -.31*** Religious Media Use .29 .21 ** Church Strictness .25 .14* Adjusted R2 = .19 Prior Behavior Religious Media Use .21 .21** Adjusted R2204 at =p<.05’ ** =p<.01, *** =p<.001 The analyses reveal that religious media use was also the best of the four indices studied at predicting persons’ willingness to express an opinion on the homosexuality issue, for two of the three measures (see Table 21). The four predictors retained in the first analysis (religious media use, perceived opinion congruity with one’s friends, gender and age) together explain 16% of the variance in persons’ willingness to verbally express an opinion on homosexuality. The three predictors retained in the second analysis (religious media use, perceived opinion congruity with one’s friends and age) together explain 21% of the variance in persons’ willingness to express an opinion on abortion behaviorally. A third analysis revealed that none of the factors listed above adequately 77 predicted persons’ prior behavioral expression on the homosexuality issue, probably because so few respondents (N = 8) had ever done so. Table 21: Predictors of Willingness to Express (Homosexuality) Retained Variables Coefficients r B Willingness to Speak Religious Media Use .31 .26*** Pcvd. Friends Congruity .21 .19** Gender .19 .17 * Age -.15 -. 15* Adjusted 12.2 = .16 Behavioral Willingness Age -.33 -.34*** Pcvd. Friends Congruity .25 .27*** Religious Media Use .25 .18** Adjusted R2: .21 * =p<.05, ** =p<.01, *** =p<.001 78 Chapter 4: Conclusion This study was designed to develop the Spiral of Silence conceptually and empirically. In particular, the literature reviewed demonstrated three potential avenues for resistance to public opinion pressure and related these to the opinion “hard core” (Noelle- Neumann, 1974, 1985, 1989, 1991, 1993). The literature reviewed in the first section suggests that persons who belong to “exclusivist” religious groups might be one type of opinion hard core, for three reasons. First, they have different ideas about societal authority. Dean Kelley’s (1972) concept of group “absolutism” is conceptually similar to Rokeach’s theory of “dogmatism” (Rokeach, 1960), on a group level. Second, members of strict groups have stronger ties to their groups and weaker ties to the “outside” world (D. M. Kelley, 1972). This idea is strikingly similar to Tajfel’s (1981; 1982) Social Categorization Theory. Third, strict group members have different communication flows, both within and out of the group (D. M. Kelley, 1972). This idea has been compared to the selective exposure hypothesis (Frey, 1986; Sears & Freedman, 1967) and the “hostile media perception” (Gunther & Chia, 2001; Gunther & Schmitt, 2004). Kelley’s (1972) three characteristics of a social group — its goals, social controls and communication patterns — match Noelle-Neumann’s (1993) concerns with social consensus, the threat of isolation and the climate of opinion. Furthermore, Kelley’s (1972) traits of group strictness —— absolutism, conformity and fanaticism — also match Noelle-Neumann’s (1974) hypothesized traits of the opinion hard core. She states that hard cores “are not prepared to conform [conformity], to change their opinions 79 [absolutism], or even to be silent in the face of public opinion [fanaticism]” (Noelle- Neumann, 1974, pp. 49-50). Summary of Results. Hypotheses and research questions based on this literature were tested using a purposive sample of 245 Protestant church members. The results indicate that stricter group members did perceive themselves to be opinion minorities and to hold more conservative opinions than the “social opinion climate.” They also expected future social opinion to move even further away from their own positions on the two issues studied here. Actual social opinion majorities were more willing than actual social opinion minorities to verbally express their views on the abortion issue. However, actual social opinion majorities were not significantly more willing than actual social opinion minorities to express their views on the homosexuality issue. The data for both issues demonstrate no significant differences between actual social majorities and actual social minorities in willingness to express an opinion behaviorally, and no difference in prior opinion expression behavior. Persons who perceived that they were social opinion majorities were actually less willing than those who perceived that they were social opinion minorities to behaviorally express their views on the abortion issue. Furthermore, those who perceived that they were social opinion majorities were not more willing than those who perceived that they were social opinion minorities to express their views on the homosexuality issue. There were no significant differences between perceived social majorities and perceived social minorities in willingness to express an opinion verbally, or in prior expression behaviors. 80 These findings provide little evidence for one of the Spiral of Silence’s major propositions. In fact, opinion majorities were only more willing to express their views than opinion minorities on one issue, and by one method. Even then, only half of those responding accurately perceived their social majority status. Actual majority status made no difference in individuals’ willingness to express an opinion on the homosexuality issue, by any method. Furthermore, those who perceived themselves to be opinion majorities were not more willing to express an opinion than those who perceived themselves to be opinion minorities, on either issue. Therefore, neither actual nor perceived majority status appears to predict willingness to express an opinion among the members of this sample. Persons whose opinions on abortion were actually gaining social support were more willing to verbally or behaviorally express their views than those whose opinions were actually losing social support. However, persons whose Opinions on homosexuality were actually gaining social support were not more willing to express their views than those whose opinions were actually losing social support. There were no significant differences in prior opinion expression behaviors between those whose opinions were actually gaining social support and those whose opinions were actually losing social support. Nor were there any significant differences observed between those who perceived that their opinions were gaining social support and those who perceived that their opinions were losing social support. This was the case for both issues and across all three methods of opinion expression. 81 These findings provide some evidence for one of the Spiral of Silence’s major propositions. Indeed, persons whose opinions were actually gaining social support were more willing to express their views than persons whose opinions were actually losing social support, for one of the issues studied. The amount of actual social support made no difference in individuals’ willingness to express an opinion on the homosexuality issue, by any method. Furthermore, persons’ perceptions of social support for their opinions ' made no difference in their willingness to express their views, on either issue. The persons in this study were able to distinguish between prevailing and future social opinion, the climate of their religious reference groups and their friends’ opinions. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that sample respondents ignored the social opinion climates in favor of their religious groups’ positions on the issues (Iannaccone, 1994; D. M. Kelley, 1972, 1978; Rokeach, 1956, 1960). Persons from all four religious groups consistently took issue positions that were over a point more conservative than their perceptions of current or future social opinion. In addition, they consistently took issue positions within half a point of what they perceived their respective religious groups’ positions to be. Furthermore, persons’ perceptions of their religious groups’ positions were accurate. Sample respondents consistently perceived that the majority of their closest friends agreed with their own opinions on each of the issues studied, suggesting a “looking glass perception” (Fields & Schuman, 1977; Glynn & McLeod, 1985; Kennamer, 1990; Noelle-Neumann, 1994; Price & Roberts, 1987). In addition, individuals who perceived greater support from their friends were more likely to express 82 their views on the homosexuality issue, both verbally and behaviorally (see also Oshagan, 1996). These findings suggest that respondents viewed the social opinion climates as a negative reference group, motivating them to reject societal norms and form counter- norms (Merton, 1968; Newcomb, 1958; Newcomb & Charters, 1950). This “social stereotyping” produced “uniformities in. ..attitudes, perceptions, etc. — that is,. .. conformity to ingroup norms” (Hogg & Turner, 1987, p. 148; see also M. Sherif, 1953; M. Sherif & Sherif, 1956). To summarize, reference groups appeared to be potent defenses against public opinion pressures, despite Noelle-Neumann’s (1985) assertions to the contrary. Respondents accurately perceived social opinion on the homosexuality issue. However, they perceived societal opinion on the abortion issue to be more liberal than it actually was - evidence of pluralistic ignorance (Breed & Ktsanes, 1961; Glynn, Ostrnan, & McDonald, 1995; Miller & McFarland, 1991; Noelle-Neumann, 1993). Perhaps this was due to unusual media attention to the abortion issue in recent years(Ball-Rokeach et al., 1990; Luker, 1984; Press & Cole, 1999), and especially during the period of data collection (Kirkpatrick, 2005; Stolberg, 2005; Toner, 2005). Respondents believed that future social opinion would become even more liberal on both issues than it currently is. Kelley (1972) theorizes that members of exclusivist religious groups should be more willing to express their views than members of ecumenical groups. In fact, strict group members were more willing to verbally and behaviorally express their views on the abortion issue. They were also more willing to verbally express their views on the 83 homosexuality issue. However, strict group members were no more likely than other respondents to have behaviorally expressed an opinion in the past. This study further hypothesized that members of strict groups would be more willing to express their opinions on a controversial issue, even if they perceived their views to be in the social minority. In fact, these persons were more willing than others to behaviorally express their views on the abortion issue. However, they were not significantly more willing than others to behaviorally express their views on the homosexuality issue. There were no significant differences between these persons and other respondents in willingness to express an opinion verbally, or in prior expression behavior. This study also hypothesized that members of strict groups would be more willing to express their opinions on a given issue, even if they perceived their views to be losing social support. These persons were more willing than others to behaviorally express their views on the homosexuality issue. However, they were not significantly more willing than others to behaviorally express their views on the abortion issue. Again, there were no significant differences between these persons and other respondents in willingness to express an opinion verbally, or in prior expression behavior. This findings of this study indicate that persons’ willingness to express an opinion on an issue was influenced by the method of opinion expression they selected (Donsbach & Stevenson, 1984; Salmon & Neuwirth, 1990; Salmon & Oshagan, 1990; Scheufele & Eveland, 2001). Nevertheless, respondents were just as willing to engage in more directly confrontational methods of expression, as they were to use less confrontational methods. 84 The data also indicate that a majority of respondents who report a willingness to express an opinion never actually do so (Scheufele et al., 2001). This finding casts serious doubt on the validity of Spiral of Silence studies that consider only respondents’ willingness to engage in hypothetical opinion behaviors (see also Glynn et al., 1997). Prior studies of the Spiral of Silence have found that persons from socially disadvantaged groups are often less willing to publicly express their opinions than others. These population groups are also disproportionately represented in exclusivist religious groups (D. M. Kelley, 1972). Therefore, this study presents an unusual opportunity to test the relative effects of demographics versus religiosity on individuals’ opinion expression. In fact, only age and gender were significantly related to respondents’ willingness to express their views (Bond & Smith, 1996; J. Kim, Wyatt, & Katz, 1999; Noelle- Neumann, 1993; Salmon & Neuwirth, 1990; Scheufele, 1999). Younger persons were more willing than older ones to behaviorally express their views on either issue. In addition, men were more likely to verbally express an opinion on homosexuality than women. No other demographic effects were found. It is important to note, however, that sample respondents were primarily White. This means that a possible silencing effect on racial or ethnic minorities could have been missed. This study investigated the characteristics of opinion hard cores. Members of the hard core were younger than other respondents, but were otherwise demographically similar to the sample as a whole. The data suggest that these persons may have disproportionately come from the stricter religious groups, but the small number of hard cores identified precludes firm conclusions. The hard core also appears to be issue specific, since few persons were hard cores on both of the issues studied. 85 Hard cores perceived the prevailing social opinion climate and the future climate of opinion on both issues to be more liberal than other respondents did. Their own positions on the abortion issue were more conservative than others’ were. However, their views on the homosexuality issue were not significantly different from others’ positions. This is not surprising, given that the majority of those surveyed (as well as a majority of the population) believed that homosexuality is “always wrong.” Hard cores also perceived their views on both issues to be accurate reflections of their religious reference groups’ “official” positions. By definition, hard cores were more willing than others to verbally express an opinion on both issues. However, they were also more willing than others to behaviorally express an opinion on the homosexuality issue. Hard cores were also heavier consumers of both mass and alternative (religious) media. These individuals listened to more mainstream and religious music radio formats, listened to more recorded religious music and watched more religious movies than others in the sample. Hard cores’ heavier use of alternative media may explain their unusual ability to resist the climate of opinion, since religious media use predicted persons’ opinions on the abortion issue and consistently predicted individuals’ willingness to express an opinion, by any measure. In a final test, Kelley’s (1972) notion of group strictness was compared to its three components, in order to determine which measure best predicts persons’ opinions and their willingness to express them. Group strictness better predicted respondents’ opinions on both of the issues studied than any of its components did. Nevertheless, religious fundamentalism was also a significant predictor of persons’ opinions on both issues. Clearly, fundamentalism independently contributes to the explained variance. This 86 suggests that both group-level (strictness) and individual-level (fundamentalism) forces are important determinants of a person’s attitudes and opinions (Festinger, 1954; Hogg & Turner, 1987; Rokeach & Restle, 1960; Tajfel, 1982). This notion is further supported by the fact that church involvement was a third independent predictor of persons’ opinions on the homosexuality issue. Nevertheless, religious media use was the best predictor of individuals’ willingness to verbally express their opinions on both issues. Religious media use was also the best predictor of persons’ prior opinion expression behavior for the abortion issue. Furthermore, religious media use was a significant predictor of respondents’ willingness to behaviorally express their opinions on either issue. Age was the only other factor that predicted both verbal and behavioral willingness to express an opinion for both of the issues. In other words, younger respondents were significantly more likely to express their views than older ones. The finding that religious media use is the best overall predictor of opinion expression suggests that media effects can indeed be powerful (Noelle-Neumann, 1973, 1999). However, it is clearly specialized, rather than mass, media that have the most pronounced influence on persons’ willingness to express controversial views (Noelle- Neumann, 1974; Tichenor & Wackman, 1973). This is likely due to the perception of mass media “hostility” to religious faith throughout the sample (Gunther & Chia, 2001; Gunther, Christen, Liebhart, & Chia, 2001; Gunther & Schmitt, 2004; Schmitt et al., 2004). In fact, the media use and opinion data presented throughout this study indicate that a “dual climate of opinion” (Noelle-Neumann, 1989, 1993) exists for each of these 87 issues, since . .persons who have much exposure to the [mass] media take a different view of the climate of opinion and where the majority is to be found than persons who do not have much exposure to the [mass] media...” (Noelle-Neumann, 1989, p. 21). These data suggest that a broad spectrum of people - not just the opinion hard core — . .may manage to support their opinions by selecting out persons and media which confirm their views” (Noelle-Neumann, 1974, p. 49). The findings of this study should be interpreted with some caution, since they were collected from a purposive sample designed to maximize the number of opinion hard cores found. Furthermore, using survey research methods to measure the Spiral of Silence may bias findings in favor of persons who are most likely to express an opinion, since they would be more likely to respond to the survey in the first place (Salmon & Kline, 1985). Still, the results reported here suggest several fruitful avenues for future research. For Future Research. Only a few researchers have used experimental methods to test the effectiveness of social opinion pressures (Gonzenbach, 1992; Moreno-Riano, 2002; Oshagan, 1996). Perhaps this is because Noelle-Neumann (1991) believes that the contrived nature of many experiments limit their applicability to public opinion theory. On the other hand, the problems with survey research noted above suggest that her method also has its shortcomings (Salmon & Kline, 1985). Future researchers should test the Spiral of Silence using both methods and compare the results. This research should attempt to gauge persons’ actual opinion likelihood, since both this study and others (Scheufele et al., 2001) have shown that persons report a greater willingness to engage in opinion expression (i.e., behavioral intention, M. S. Kim & Hunter, 1993a; M. S. Kim & 88 Hunter, 1993b) than actual expression behavior (Baldassare & Katz, 1996; Donsbach & Stevenson, 1984; Glynn & Park, 1997; Oshagan, 1996; Salmon & Neuwirth, 1990; Scheufele et al., 2001). Future Spiral of Silence research would also benefit from an analysis of the interpersonal networks persons use to gain information about controversial social issues (Marsden & Lin, 1982). The roles of opinion leaders (Katz, 1957, 1983; Katz & Lazarsfeld, 1964) and the relative contributions of persons having “strong” versus “weak” social ties (Granovetter, 1973, 1982; Rogers, 1995) to one another should be investigated further. Religious groups could also be studied in terms of their “local” or “cosmopolitan” orientations (Roof, 1976, 1978). This theory states that some persons are more attached to their immediate social networks (including local reference groups, such as churches) and others are more attached to the broader society (Merton, 1968). This idea fits well with Kelley’s (1972) theory, suggesting that exclusivist groups should be more local and ecumenical groups more cosmopolitan. Such an analysis may help illuminate the relative contribution of reference groups versus “cosmopolitan” sources of public opinion (e.g., the mass media, Rogers, 1995). The relative influences of group strictness and individual absolutism (e.g., fundamentalism) should be investigated over a range of religious groups from across the “exclusivist-ecumenical gradient” (D. M. Kelley, 1972). These effects should also be tested on non-religious groups, which have been shown to behave in many ways like religious sects (Wallis, 1975; Wilson, 1967). 89 In addition, the role of alternative media sources (Noelle—Neumann, 1974; Tichenor & Wackman, 1973) and their possible counterbalancing effects on the climate of opinion presented in the mass media should also be investigated more systematically. The findings presented here demonstrate that persons’ religious media use reliably predicts their willingness to express an opinion on each of the issues studied. These findings stand in sharp contrast to N oelle-Neumann’s — as well as Gerbner and his associates’ (Gerbner, Gross, Morgan, & Signorielli, 1980, 2002; Shanahan & Morgan, 1999) — emphases on the “powerful” effects of the mass media (Noelle-Neumann, 1973, 1985, 1991, 1993). Furthermore, future studies of the Spiral of Silence should use systematic content analyses of both the mass (Noelle-Neumann, 1973, 1994, 1999) and alternative media sources that groups of people routinely use. This should better illuminate how each form of media “create” (Noelle-Neumann, 1974, p. 51) or reinforce persons’ opinions and their willingness to express them. It would also help define the conditions under which each type of media is most effective. Research into the “hostile media perception” is promising in this regard (Gunther & Chia, 2001; Gunther et al., 2001; Gunther & Schmitt, 2004; Schmitt et al., 2004). The characteristics of the opinion hard core outlined in this study should be investigated on larger groups of people, to determine how reliable the preliminary findings are. The characteristics of the avant-garde should also be studied in relation to the hard core. Noelle-Neumann (1977; 1993) predicts that the two groups should be highly similar in their outlooks and practices, but this hypothesis has yet to be tested. In addition, the broad spectrum of persons actively resisting public opinion pressure in this 90 study suggests that the operational definitions of the avant—garde and the opinion hard core employed here may be too restrictive. Future researchers should test a continuous measure of opinion resistance. Finally, the possible influence of respondents’ race or ethnicity on opinion expression should be investigated more carefully (Bond & Smith, 1996). Prior Spiral of Silence research suggests that willingness to speak out may have a cultural component (Scheufele & Moy, 2000), but the churches sampled in this study were heavily Caucasian. Since members of non-White racial or ethnic groups are known to take unique perspectives on certain social issues (Bolzendahl & Brooks, 2005; Steensland et al., 2000), they are likely to differ in their willingness to express an opinion on those issues as well. These suggestions should assist researchers in clarifying the conditions under which the Spiral of Silence is — and is not — operative, each of which would make an invaluable contribution to the development of public opinion theory. 91 APPENDICES 92 Appendix A: Survey Instrument Social Opinions Survey Consent Form You are being asked to participate in an academic research study exploring the relationship between religiosity, media use and social opinions. This survey is completely voluntary and should take only 10-15 minutes of your time. You may refuse to participate in this study or not to answer certain questions. You may also discontinue the survey at any time without penalty. All data gathered will be reported only in aggregate form. In other words, your responses will never be linked to you individually. All data will be kept confidential and no individually identifiable information will be released in any report of research findings. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. If you have any questions about this study, please contact the investigator: Dr. Charles T. Salmon, Acting Dean, College of Communication Arts and Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing MI 48824, 517-355-3410 or salmon@msu.edu. If you have questions or concerns regarding your rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study, you may contact - anonymously, if yOu wish — Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS) by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517)432-4503, e-mail: ucrihs@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824. 93 Social Opinions Survey 1) Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements, using the following scale: Strongly Somewhat Undecided Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree 1 2 3 4 5 a) The Bible is inerrant (absolutely true) in its original manuscripts. 1 2 3 . 4 5 b) Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus. 1 2 3 4 5 0) Jesus died on the cross to pay the penalty for humanity’s sins. l 2 3 4 5 (1) Jesus Christ physically rose from the dead. 1 2 3 4 5 e) Jesus will physically return to earth someday. I 2 3 4 5 2) Please indicate the degree to which you agree with the following statements, using the following scale: Strongly Somewhat Undecided Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Agree 1 2 3 4 5 a) The mainstream (non-religious) mass media have a liberal bias. 1 2 3 4 5 b) The mainstream (non-religious) mass media are generally unfriendly toward religion. 1 2 3 4 5 c) Religious media offer a perspective on social issues that the mainstream media ignore. l 2 3 4 5 94 3) The columns below list a variety of mass media sources people use for information and entertainment. Please indicate how frequently you use each of the types listed. The left column includes all media except religious. The right column includes religious media only. Under each, please check “N” if you never use that source, “M” if you use it once a month or more, “W” if you use it once a week or more, and “D” if you use it every day. General Religious a) Television (Entertainment) _N _M _W _D _N _M _W ___D b) Television (News) _N _M _W _D _N _M _W _D c) Movies/Home Video _N _M _W _D _N _M __W _D (1) Radio (Music Formats) _N _M _W _D _N _M _W _D e) Radio (“Talk” or Teaching)_N _M _W _D _N _M _W _D 0 Recorded Music _N _M _W _D _N _M _W _D g) Other Audio Recordings _N _M _W _D _N _M _W _D h) Internet (Entertainment) _N _M _W _D _N _M _W _D i) Internet (News/Info.) _N _M _W __D _N _M _W _D j) Newspapers _N _M _W __D _N _M _W _D k) Magazines _N _M _W _D _N _M _W _D 1) Books _N _M _W _D _N _M _W _D 4) How often do you attend religious services? _More often than once a week _Once a week _A few times a month _Several times a year _Yearly or less often 5) How many religious groups such as Bible studies, prayer groups, etc. do you regularly participate in, whether they are within your local congregation or not? Please give a number. 6) How often do you attend religious group meetings? (Please answer for the group you attend most frequently) _More often than once a week _Once a week _A few times a month _Several times a year _Yearly or less often _Never 95 IICWS. 7) 8) 9) The following section asks for your opinions on issues that are often in the Ever since the US. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion, there has been considerable debate on the issue within social and religious circles. Many religious groups have taken official stands on the legality of abortion. Now consider your church or denomination: What is its position regarding abortion? Should abortions be legal under any circumstances, legal under only certain circumstances, or never legal under any circumstance? Legal Under... Any Certain No Circumstances Circumstances Circumstances l 2 3 4 5 don’t know my church’s stance on abortion What do you think? Should abortions be legal under any circumstances, legal under only certain circumstances, or never legal under any circumstance? Legal Under.. . Any Certain No Circumstances Circumstances Circumstances 1 2 3 4 5 How many of your five closest friends do you think agree with your position on abortion? Please give a number. 10) Now, regardless of your own opinion, how do you think most people in society feel about the issue? Do they think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal under only certain circumstances, or never legal under any circumstance? Legal Under.. . Any Certain No Circumstances Circumstances Circumstances l 2 3 4 S 96 11) What do you think will happen in the future: what will pe0ple’s views be like in five years’ time? Will most people in society think abortions should be legal under any circumstances, legal under only certain circumstances, or never legal under any circumstance? Legal Under... Any Certain No Circumstances Circumstances Circumstances l 2 3 4 5 12) Now, imagine you’re at some kind of social gathering where you don’t know anyone. You’re talking to a group of people when somebody brings up the issue of abortion. From the discussion you can tell that most people in the group do not support your point of view. In this kind of situation, some people would express their opinions and some would not. How likely is it that you would express your own opinion in a situation like this? _ very likely __ somewhat likely __ somewhat unlikely _ very unlikely 13) Which of the following would you be willing to do to show your opinion on abortion? Place a check mark next to those activities you would be willing to do. In addition, please CIRCLE any of the following activities that you have personally done in the past. _ wear a button _ place a bumper sticker on your car _ attend a demonstration defending your view _ pass out literature defending your view _ allow yourself to be quoted by name in the mass media _ allow yourself to be interviewed live on radio or TV 14) The issue of homosexuality has been debated within social and religious circles for centuries. Many religious groups have taken official stands on the practice of homosexual relations. Now consider your church or denomination: What is its position regarding homosexuality? Does it consider sexual relations between two adults of the same sex to be always wrong, wrong only sometimes or not wrong at all? Wrong... Always Sometimes Not At All 1 2 3 4 5 don’t know my church’s stance on homosexuality 97 15) What do you think? Are sexual relations between two adults of the same sex always wrong, wrong only sometimes or not wrong at all? Wrong... Always Sometimes Not At All 1 2 3 4 5 16) How many of your five closest friends do you think agree with your position on homosexual relations? Please give a number. 17) Now, regardless of your own opinion, how do you think most people in society feel about the issue? Do they think sexual relations between two adults of the same sex is always wrong, wrong only sometimes or not wrong at all? Wrong... Always Sometimes Not At All 1 2 3 4 5 18) What do you think will happen in the future: what will people’s views be like in five years’ time? Will most people in society think that sexual relations between two adults of the same sex is always wrong, wrong only sometimes or not wrong at all? Wrong... Always Sometimes Not At All 1 2 3 4 5 19) Now, imagine you’re at some kind of social gathering where you don’t know anyone. You’re talking to a group of people when somebody brings up the issue of homosexuality. From the discussion you can tell that most people in the group do not support your point of view. In this kind of situation, some people would express their opinions and some would not. How likely is it that you would express your own opinion in a situation like this? _ very likely __ somewhat likely _ somewhat unlikely _ very unlikely 98 20) Which of the following would you be willing to do to show your opinion on homosexuality? Place a check mark next to those activities you would be willing to do. In addition, please CIRCLE any of the following activities that you have personally done in the past. __ wear a button _ place a bumper sticker on your car _ attend a demonstration defending your view _ pass out literature defending your view _ allow yourself to be quoted by name in the mass media __ allow yourself to be interviewed live on radio or TV Please provide the following information so that we may properly classify your responses. 21) What is your age? 22) Please circle your gender: Female Male 23) What is your racial background? (You may select more than one answer.) _White or Caucasian _Black, African or African-American _Hispanic or Latino _Asian or Pacific Islander _Native American _Other (please identify): 24) What is your educational level? _Some High School or less _High School graduate _Some College _College graduate _Some post-graduate study (M.A., Ph.D., etc.) _Post-graduate degree 25) What do you consider your family’s economic position to be? _Upper class _Professional ___Middle class _Working class _Economically challenged Thank you for completing this survey. Please take a minute to ensure that you have answered every question to the best of your ability, and then return the survey in the enclosed post-paid envelope. Your input is very important. 99 Appendix B: Group Strictness Rating Form Instructions for Expert Raters [Excerpts from Cover Letter] Note that each of the ratings ranges from 1 to 7, plus a response of “Don’t know.” Would you consider the list of denominations and spread them over the whole mge from 1 to 7 when making ratings? Do not use merely l and 2, or 6 and 7. I am interested in actual variations, not variations relative to some ideal or possible condition. In some cases you will not know. This is unavoidable. In those cases circle “Don’t know.” But I would like to ask that you do so no more than one-fourth of the time at most. In some instances I would prefer an estimate on your part, rather than a “Don’t know.” (Reprinted from Hoge & Roozen, 1979b, p. E-l) 100 Expert Rating Form DIMENSION #1: STRENGTH OF ETHNIC IDENTITY, 1966-75 no ethnic or strong ethnic nationality or nationality identity identity 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Don’t know DIMENSION #2: THEOLOGICAL CONSERVATISM OR LIBERALISM, 1966-75 “Conservative” includes literal accuracy of Scriptures, literal heaven and hell, and suspicion of science or rationality as a source of truth or authority. “Liberal” includes less literal interpretation of Scriptures, philosophical view of heaven and hell, and openness to science and rationality. most most conservative liberal l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Don’t know DIMENSION #3: ATTITUDES TOWARD ECUMENISM, 1966-75 most positive most negative to ecumenism to ecumenism l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Don’t know DIMENSION #4: CENTRALIZED OR CONGREGATIONAL POLITY, 1966-75 “Centralized” includes central or regional authority over appointments, finances, and programs. “Congregational” indicates local autonomy in these and other matters. centralized congregational mlity polity l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Don’t know 101 DIMENSION #5: EMPHASIS ON LOCAL AND COMMUNITY EVANGELISM, 1966-75 Do the churches in the denomination typically put a high, or a low, priority on efforts in community evangelism - such as canvassing, visitation, promoting Sunday school or Bible study groups in the community, or sponsoring revival services? The emphasis here is not on particular methods but overall priority. low priority high priority on community on community evangelism evangelism 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Don’t know DIMENSION #6: INVOLVEMENT IN SOCIAL ACTION, 1966-75 “Social action” refers to efforts directed to social, political, or economic change, such as programs in the areas of race relations, poverty, and community self-help. It does not refer to individual charity or relief. not involved heavily involved in social action in social action 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Don’t know DIMENSION #7: EMPHASIS ON DISTINCTIVE LIFE STYLE AND MORALITY, 1966-75 Does the denomination emphasize maintaining a separate and distinctive life style or morality in personal and family life, in such areas as dress, diet, drinking, entertainment, use of time, marriage, sex, child rearing, and the like? Or does it affirrn the current American mainline life style in these respects? maximal maximal affirmation distinctiveness of American from American life style life style 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Don’t know 102 DIMENSION #8: ATTITUDE TOWARD PLURALISM OF BELIEF AMONG MEMBERS, 1966-75 Does the denomination demand a single set of belief? Does it maintain strict standards of faith and doctrine? Or does it encourage pluralism and individuality in theological views among its congregations and its members? This dimension refers more to view of leadership than of lay members. demands strict affirms individu- standards of ality and pluralism beliefs in beliefs 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Don’t know (Reprinted frOm Hoge & Roozen, 1979b, pp. E-l - E-3) 103 BIBLIOGRAPHY 104 BIBLIOGRAPHY Abelson, R. P. (1959). Modes of resolution of belief dilemmas. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 3, 343-352. Abelson, R. P. (1968). Psychological implication. In R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg & P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 112-139). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally and Co. Alley, R. S. (1990a). Television and public virtue. In J. P. Ferré (Ed.), Channels of belief: Religion and American commercial television (pp. 45-55). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Alley, R. S. (1990b). Television, religion, and Fundamentalist distortions. In R. Abelman & S. M. Hoover (Eds.), Religious television: Controversies and conclusions (pp. 265-273). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp. Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. Winnipeg, Canada: University of Manitoba Press. Altemeyer, B., & Hunsberger, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, religious Fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2(2), 1 13-133. Altholz, J. L. (1985). The first religious magazines. Notes and Queries, 32(2), 223-224. Ammerman, N. T. (1991). North American Protestant Fundamentalism. In M. E. Marty & R. S. Appleby (Eds.), Fundamentalism observed (Vol. 1, pp. 1-65). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Anonymous. (2005a, November 29). UMC bishops dispute church court ruling on gay membership. Christian Century, 122, 13. Anonymous. (2005b, December 12). Vatican document on homosexuals. America, 193, 6-7. Apostolidis, P. (2000). Stations of the cross : Adamo and Christian right radio. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Asch, S. E. (1952). Social psychology. New York, NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70(9), 1-70. 105 Asch, S. E. (1958). Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 174-183). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Atkin, C. K. (1985). Informational utility and selective exposure to entertainment media. In D. Zillmann & J. Bryant (Eds.), Selective exposure to communication (pp. 63- 91). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Baker, R. K., Epstein, L. K., & Forth, R. D. (1981). Matters of life and death: Social, political, and religious correlates of attitudes on abortion. American Politics Quarterly, 9(1), 89-102. Baldassare, M., & Katz, C. (1996). Measures of attitude strength as predictors of willingness to speak to the media. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 73(1), 147-158. Ball-Rokeach, S. J ., Power, G. J ., Guthrie, K. K., & Waring, H. R. (1990). Value-framing abortion in the United States: An application media system dependency theory. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2(3), 249-273. Berelson, B. (1948). Communications and public opinion. In W. L. Schramm (Ed.), Communications in modern society: Fifteen studies of the mass media (pp. 142- 155). Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. Board, S. (1990). Moving the world with magazines: A survey of Evangelical periodicals. In Q. J. Schultze (Ed.), American evangelicals and the mass media: Perspectives on the relationship between American evangelicals and the mass media (pp. 119- 142). Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corp. Bolzendahl, C., & Brooks, C. (2005). Polarization, secularization, or differences as usual? The denominational cleavage in US social attitudes since the 1970s. Sociological Quarterly, 46(1), 47-78. Bond, R., & Smith, P. B. (1996). Culture and conformity: A meta-analysis of studies using Asch's line judgment task. Psychological Bulletin, 119(1), 111-137. Bourgault, L. M. (1985). The "PTL Club" and Protestant viewers: An ethnographic study. Journal of Communication, 35(1), 132-148. Boyarin, D. (1999). Dying for God: Martyrdom and the making of Christianity and Judaism. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Bozell, L. B. I. (2003, March 21, 2003). Anti-Catholic "entertainment". Retrieved April 14, 2003, from http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/lbbcolumns/2003/032 l .asp 106 Breed, W., & Ktsanes, T. (1961). Pluralistic ignorance in the process of opinion formation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25(3), 382-392. Brehm, J. W., & Cohen, A. R. (1962). Explorations in cognitive dissonance. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Brock, T. C. (1965). Commitment to exposure as a determinant of information receptivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2(1), 10—19. Brooke, S. L. (1993). The morality of homosexuality. Journal of Homosexuality, 25(4), 77-99. Budde, M. L. (1997). The (Magic) Kingdom of God: Christianity and the global culture industries. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Buddenbaum, J. M. (1981). Characteristics and media-related needs of the audience for religious TV. Journalism Quarterly, 58(2), 266-272. Buddenbaum, J. M. (2001). Christian perspectives on mass media. In D. A. Stout & J. M. Buddenbaum (Eds.), Religion and popular culture: Studies on the interaction of worldviews (pp. 81-94). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Bunt, G. R. (2000). Virtually Islamic: Computer-mediated communication and cyber Islamic environments. Cardiff, Wales: University of Wales Press. Chamberlain, N. S. (1987). An exploratory study of the relationship between general television preferences, religious television viewing, and levels of religiosity. Unpublished M.A., California State University, Fullerton, CA. Charters, W. W., Jr., & Newcomb, T. M. (1958). Some attitudinal effects of experimentally increased salience of a membership group. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 276-281). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Cialdini, R. B., & Trost, M. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In D. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 151-192). New York, NY: The McGraw- Hill Companies, Inc. Clark, E. T. (1949). The small sects in America. New York, NY: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press. Cornwall, M. (1987). The social bases of religion: A study of factors influencing religious belief and commitment. Review of Religious Research, 29(1), 44-56. 107 Cotton, J. L. (1985). Cognitive dissonance in selective exposure. In D. Zillmann & J. Bryant (Eds.), Selective exposure to communication (pp. 11-33). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Cotugno, H. E., & Wuthnow, R. (1984). The Gallup report. In G. Gerbner, L. Gross, S. M. Hoover, M. Morgan & N. Signorielli (Eds.), Religion and television: A research report (Vol. 2, Appendix V, pp. 1-110). Philadelphia, PA: The University of Pennsylvania. Csikszenthmihalyi, M. (1991). Reflections on the "Spiral of Silence". In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 14, pp. 288-297). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Davidson, J. D., & Knudsen, D. D. (1977). A new approach to religious commitment. Sociological Focus, 10(2), 151-173. Davis, J. A., & Smith, T. W. (1992). The NORC general social survey: A user's guide. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Davis, J. A., & Smith, T. W. (2005). General Social Surveys, 1972-2004 [computer file]. lst NORC edition. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center [producer], 2005. Storrs, CI‘: The Roper Center, University of Connecticut [distributor]. De Cecco, J. P., & Parker, D. A. (1995). The biology of homosexuality: Sexual orientation or sexual preference? Journal of Homosexuality, 28(1-2), 1-27. Donsbach, W., & Stevenson, R. L. (1984, May). Challenges, problems and empirical evidence of the Spiral of Silence. Paper presented at the International Communication Association, San Francisco, CA. Durkheim, E. (1976). The elementary forms of the religious life (J. W. Swain, Trans). London, UK: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd. (Original work published 1912). Emerson, M. O. (1996). Through tinted glasses: Religion, worldviews, and abortion attitudes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 35(1), 41-55. Entrnan, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication, 43(4), 51-58. Erickson, H. (1992). Religious radio and television in the United States, 1921-1991: The programs and personalities. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Ersoz, M. (1998). Gimme that old-time religion in a postmodern age: Semiotics of Christian radio. In L. Kintz & J. Lesage (Eds.), Media, culture, and the religious right (pp. 211-225). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 108 Evans, J. H. (1997). Worldviews or social groups as the source of moral value attitudes: Implications for the culture wars thesis. Sociological Forum, 12(3), 371-404. Evans, J. H. (2002). Polarization in abortion attitudes in US religious traditions: 1972- 1998. Sociological Forum, 17(3), 397-422. Ferré, J. P. (1985). Religious perspectives on commercial television in the United States. Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 2(3), 290-295. Ferré, J. P. (1990). Searching for the Great Commission: Evangelical book publishing since the 1970s. In Q. J. Schultze (Ed.), American evangelicals and the mass media: Perspectives on the relationship between American evangelicals and the mass media (pp. 99-117). Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corp. Festinger, L. (1950). Informal social communication. Psychological Review, 57, 271-282. Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117- 140. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson and Co. Festinger, L. (Ed.). (1964). Conflict, decision, and dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Festinger, L., Schachter, S., & Back, K. W. (1963). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Fields, J. M., & Schuman, H. (1977). Public beliefs about the beliefs of the public. Public Opinion Quarterly, 40(4), 427-448. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Freedman, J. L., & Sears, D. O. (1965). Selective exposure. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 57-97). New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc. Frey, D. (1986). Recent research on selective exposure to information. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 41-80). New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc. Gallup Organization. (2006). The Gallup Poll. Retrieved April 24, 2006, from http://brain.gallup.com 109 Gantz, W., & Kowalewski, P. (1979, August 5-8). Religious broadcasting as an alternative to TV: An initial assessment of potential utilization of the Christian Broadcasting Network alternative. Paper presented at the Association for Education in Journalism, Houston, TX. Gerard, H. B. (1968). Basic features of commitment. In R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg & P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 456-463). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally and Co. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Hoover, S. M., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1984). Religion and television: A research report. Philadelphia, PA: The University of Pennsylvania. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (1980). The "mainstreaming" of America: Violence Profile No. 11. Journal of Communication, 30(3), 10-29. Gerbner, G., Gross, L., Morgan, M., & Signorielli, N. (2002). Growing up with television: The cultivation perspective. In M. Morgan (Ed.), Against the mainstream: The selected works of George Gerbner (pp. 193-213). New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc. Gill, M. (1990). The music of Amy Grant: A new wrapping for a timeless message. Journal of Communication and Religion, 13, 12-24. Giner—Sorolla, R., & Chaiken, S. (1994). The causes of hostile media judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30(2), 165-180. Glynn, C. J ., Hayes, A. F., & Shanahan, J. (1997). Perceived support for one's opinions and willingness to speak out: A meta-analysis of survey studies on the "Spiral of Silence". Public Opinion Quarterly, 61(3), 452-463. Glynn, C. J ., & McLeod, J. M. (1982). Public opinion, communication processes, and voting decisions. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication yearbook (V 01. 6, pp. 759-774). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Glynn, C. J., & McLeod, J. M. (1984). Public opinion du jour: An examination of the Spiral of Silence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48(4), 731-740. Glynn, C. J ., & McLeod, J. M. (1985). Implications of the spiral of silence theory for communication and public opinion research. In K. R. Sanders, L. L. Kaid & D. D. N immo (Eds.), Political communication yearbook 1984 (pp. 43-65). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. 110 Glynn, C. J ., Ostman, R. E., & McDonald, D. G. (1995). Opinions, perception, and social reality. In T. L. Glasser & C. T. Salmon (Eds.), Public opinion and the communication of consent (pp. 249-277). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Glynn, C. J ., & Park, E. (1997 ). Reference groups, opinion intensity, and public opinion expression. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 9(3), 213-232. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Goldscheid, J. (2005, Summer). State anti-marriage amendments threaten domestic violence laws. National NOW Times, 37, 4-5. Gonzenbach, W. J. (1992). The conformity hypothesis: Empirical considerations for the Spiral of Silence's first link. Journalism Quarterly, 69(3), 633-645. Granberg, D. (1981). The abortion activists. Family Planning Perspectives, 13(4), 157- 163. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380. Granovetter, M. S. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In P. V. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 105-130). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Gross, L. (1990). Religion, television, and politics: The Right bank of the mainstream. In R. Abelman & S. M. Hoover (Eds.), Religious television: Controversies and conclusions (pp. 227-236). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp. Gunther, A. C. (1992). Biased press or biased public? Attitudes toward media coverage of social groups. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56(2), 147-167. Gunther, A. C., & Chia, S. C.-Y. (2001). Predicting pluralistic ignorance: The hostile media perception and its consequences. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(4), 688-701. Gunther, A. C., Christen, C. T., Liebhart, J. L., & Chia, S. C.-Y. (2001). Congenial public, contrary press, and biased estimates of the climate of opinion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65(3), 295-320. Gunther, A. C., & Schmitt, K. M. (2004). Mapping boundaries of the hostile media effect. Journal of Communication, 54(1), 55-70. 111 Hadden, J. K. (1990). Televangelism and political mobilization. In Q. J. Schultze (Ed.), American evangelicals and the mass media: Perspectives on the relationship between American evangelicals and the mass media (pp. 215-229). Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corp. Hamilton, N. F., & Rubin, A. M. (1992). The influence of religiosity on television viewing. Journalism Quarterly, 69(3), 667-678. Haynes, C. C. (2000). Faith, fairness and the American press. Media Studies Journal, 14(3), 82. Helland, C. (2002). Surfing for salvation. Religion, 32(4), 293-302. Henshaw, S. K., & Martire, G. (1982). Abortion and the public opinion polls: Morality and legality. Family Planning Perspectives, 14(2), 53-55, 59-60. Hill, G. H. (1983). Airwaves to the soul: The influence and growth of religious broadcasting in America. Saratoga, CA: R & E Publishers. Hoge, D. R. (1979). A test of theories of denominational growth and decline. In D. R. Hoge & D. A. Roozen (Eds.), Understanding church growth and decline: 1950- 1978 (pp. 179-197). New York, NY: The Pilgrim Press. Hoge, D. R., & Roozen, D. A. (1979a). Research on factors influencing church comrrritrnent. In D. R. Hoge & D. A. Roozen (Eds.), Understanding church growth and decline: 1950-1978 (pp. 42—68). New York, NY: The Pilgrim Press. Hoge, D. R., & Roozen, D. A. (1979b). Technical appendix to "Understanding church growth and decline: 1950-1978". Hartford, CT: Hartford Seminary Foundation. Hogg, M. A., & Turner, J. C. (1987). Social identity and conformity: A theory of referent informational influence. In W. Doise & S. Moscovici (Eds.), Current issues in European social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 139-182). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Holbert, R. L., Shah, D. V., & Kwak, N. (2003). Political implications of prime-time drama and sitcom use: Genres of representation and opinions concerning women's rights. Journal of Communication, 53(1), 45-60. Holbrook, A. L., Green, M. C., & Krosnick, J. A. (2003). Telephone versus face-to-face interviewing of national probability samples with long questionnaires: Comparisons of respondent satisficing and social desirability response bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67(1), 79-125. Hood, R. W., Spilka, B., Hunsberger, B., & Gorsuch, R. L. (1996). The psychology of religion: An empirical approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. 112 Hoover, S. M. (1990). Television, religion, and religious television: Purposes and cross purposes. In N. Signorielli & M. Morgan (Eds.), Cultivation analysis: New directions in media efiects research (pp. 123-140). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Howard, J. R. (1992). Contemporary Christian music: Where rock meets religion. Journal of Popular Culture, 26(1), 123-130. Hunter, J. E., Levine, R. L., & Sayers, S. E. (1976). Attitude change in hierarchical belief systems and its relationship to persuasibility, dogmatism, and rigidity. Human Communication Research, 3(1), 3-28. Hyman, H. H., & Sheatsley, P. B. (1947). Some reasons why information campaigns fail. Public Opinion Quarterly, 11(3), 413—423. Iannaccone, L. R. (1994). Why strict churches are strong. American Journal of Sociology, 99(5),1180-1211. Iannaccone, L. R. (1997). Toward an economic theory of "Fundamentalism". Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 153(1), 100-116. Jackson, L. M., & Hunsberger, B. (1999). An intergroup perspective on religion and prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 38(4), 509-523. J ackson-Beeck, M. (1977). The non-viewers: Who are they? Journal of Communication, 27(3), 65-72. Jelen, T. G. (1991). The political mobilization of religious beliefs. New York, NY: Praeger Publishers. J elen, T. G. (1992). Political Christianity: A contextual analysis. American Journal of Political Science, 36(3), 692-714. Jelen, T. G., & Wilcox, C. (2003). Causes and consequences of public attitudes toward abortion: A review and research agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(4), 489-500. Johnson, B. (1963). On church and sect. American Sociological Review, 28(4), 539-549. Johnson, E. (1998). The emergence of Christian video and the cultivation of videovangelism. In L. Kintz & J. Lesage (Eds.), Media, culture, and the religious right (pp. 191-210). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Jones, C. (2005, May 17). Gay marriage debate still intense a year later: Battle is being fought beyond Massachusetts. USA Today, p. A1. 113 Kareem, N. (2005, July 13-19). Open door policy: United Church of Christ members applaud gay-friendly resolution. Santa Fe Reporter, p. 10. Katz, E. (1957). The two-step flow of communication: An up-to-date report on an hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 21(1), 61-78. Katz, E. (1968). On reopening the question of selectivity in exposure to mass communications. In R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg & P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 788-796). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally and Co. Katz, E. (1983). Publicity and pluralistic ignorance: Notes on "The Spiral of Silence". In E. Wartella, D. C. Whitney & S. Windahl (Eds.), Mass communication review yearbook (Vol. 4, pp. 89-99). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Katz, E., & Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1964). Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. New York, NY: The Free Press. Kelley, D. M. (1972). Why conservative churches are growing: A study in sociology of religion. New York, NY: Harper & Row, Publishers. Kelley, D. M. (1978). Why conservative churches are still growing. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 17(2), 165-172. Kelley, H. H. (1955). Salience of membership and resistance to change of group- anchored attitudes. Human Relations, 3, 275-289. Kellstedt, L. A., & Smidt, C. E. (1991). Measuring Fundamentalism: An analysis of different operational strategies. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 30(3), 259-278. Kemp, C. G. (1957). Change in patterns of personal values in relation to open-closed belief systems. Unpublished Ph.D., Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. Kennamer, J. D. (1990). Self-serving biases in perceiving the opinions of others: Implications for the Spiral of Silence. Communication Research, 17(3), 393-404. Kiesler, C. A. (1968). Commitment. In R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg & P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 448-455). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally and Co. Kiesler, C. A., Collins, B. E., & Miller, N. (1969). Attitude change: A critical analysis of theoretical approaches. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 114 Kim, J., Wyatt, R. O., & Katz, E. (1999). News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation in deliberative democracy. Political Communication, 16(4), 361-385. Kim, M. S., & Hunter, J. E. (1993a). Attitude behavior relations: A metaanalysis of attitudinal relevance and topic. Journal of Communication, 43(1), 101-142. Kim, M. S., & Hunter, J. E. (1993b). Relationships among attitudes, behavioral intentions, and behavior: A Metaanalysis of past research, part 2. Communication Research, 20(3), 331-364. Kirkpatrick, D. D. (2005, October 27). Nominee is pressed on her abortion views. New York Times, p. A18. Klapper, J. T. (1964). The effects of mass communication. Glencoe, IL: The Free Hess. Klapper, J. T. (1967). Mass communication, attitude stability, and change. In C. W. Sherif & M. Sherif (Eds.), Attitude, ego-involvement, and change (pp. 297-309). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Knowles, E. S., & Linn, J. A. (2004). The importance of resistance to persuasion. In J. A. Linn (Ed.), Resistance and persuasion (pp. 3-9). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 537-567. Kruglanski, A. W., & Mayseless, O. (1987). Motivational effects in the social comparison of opinions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(5), 834-842. Laythe, B., Finkel, D. G., Bringle, R. G., & Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2002). Religious fundamentalism as a predictor of prejudice: A two-component model. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 41(4), 623-635. Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1968). The people 's choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press. Lippmann, W. (1965). Public opinion. New York, NY: The Macmillan Co. (Original work published 1922). Litman, B. R., & Bain, E. (1989). The viewership of religious television programming: A multidisciplinary analysis of televangelism. Review of Religious Research, 30(4), 329-343. 115 Lowell, A. L. (1919). Public opinion and popular government. New York, NY: Longmans. Luker, K. (1984). Abortion and the politics of motherhood. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Marsden, P. V., & Lin, N. (Eds). (1982). Social structure and network analysis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Maus, M. (1990). Believers as behavers: News coverage of Evangelicals by the secular media. In Q. J. Schultze (Ed.), American evangelicals and the mass media: Perspectives on the relationship between American evangelicals and the mass media (pp. 253-273). Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corp. McFarland, S. G. (1996). Keeping the faith: The roles of selective exposure and avoidance in maintaining religious beliefs. In D. A. Stout & J. M. Buddenbaum (Eds.), Religion and mass media: Audiences and adaptations (pp. 173-182). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. McGuire, W. J. (1968). Selective exposure: A summing up. In R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg & P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 797-800). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally and Co. Melton, J. G., Lucas, P. C., & Stone, J. R. (1997). Prime-time religion: An encyclopedia of religious broadcasting. Phoenix, AZ: Oryx Press. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press. Miller, D. T., & McFarland, C. (1991). When social comparison goes awry: The case of pluralistic ignorance. In J. M. Suls & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 287-313). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Mills, J. (1968). Interest in supporting and discrepant information. In R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg & P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 771-776). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally and Co. Mookas, I. (1998). Faultlines: Homophobic innovation in "Gay Rights/Special Rights". In L. Kintz & J. Lesage (Eds.), Media, culture, and the religious right (pp. 345-361). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Moreno-Riano, G. (2002). Experimental implications for the Spiral of Silence. Social Science Journal, 39(1), 65-81. 116 Moscovici, S., & Faucheux, C. (1972). Social influence, conformity bias, and the study of active minorities. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 6, pp. 149-202). New York, NY: Academic Press, Inc. Moy, P., Domke, D., & Stamm, K. (2001). The spiral of silence and public opinion on affirmative action. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(1), 7-25. Nelson, T. E., & Oxley, Z. M. (1999). Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. Journal of Politics, 61 (4), 1040-1067. Nelson, T. E., Oxley, Z. M., & Clawson, R. A. (1997). Toward a psychology of framing effects. Political Behavior, 19(3), 221-246. Nemeth, R. J ., & Luidens, D. A. (1989). The new Christian Right and mainline Protestantism: The case of the Reformed Church in America. Sociological Analysis, 49(4), 343-352. Neuwirth, K., & Frederick, E. (2004). Peer and social influence on opinion expression: Combining the Theories of Planned Behavior and the Spiral of Silence. Communication Research, 31(6), 669-703. Newcomb, T. M. (1958). Attitude development as a function of reference groups: The Bennington study. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology (3rd ed., pp. 265-275). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Newcomb, T. M., & Charters, W. W., Jr. (1950). Social psychology. New York, NY: The Dryden Press. Newey, A. (1996). Networking for God: Religion on the intemet. Index on Censorship, 25(4), 132-137. Newman, J. (1996). Religion vs. television: Competitors in cultural context. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1973). Return to the concept of powerful mass media. In H. Eguchi & K. Sata (Eds.), Studies of broadcasting: An international annual of broadcasting science (pp. 67-112). Tokyo, Japan: The Nippon Hoso Kyokai. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 24(2), 43-51. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1977). Turbulences in the climate of opinion: Methodological applications of the spiral of silence theory. Public Opinion Quarterly, 41(2), 143- 158. 117 Noelle-Neumann, E. (1979). Public opinion and the classical tradition: A re-evaluation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43(2), 143-156. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1985). The spiral of silence: A response. In K. R. Sanders, L. L. Kaid & D. D. Nimmo (Eds.), Political communication yearbook 1984 (pp. 66-94). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1989). Advances in Spiral of Silence research. KEIO Communication Review, 10(4), 3-34. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1991). The theory of public opinion: The concept of the Spiral of Silence. In J. A. Anderson (Ed.), Communication yearbook (Vol. 14, pp. 256- 287). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1993). The spiral of silence: Public opinion - our social skin (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1994). Are we asking the right questions? Developing measurement from theory - The influence of the Spiral of Silence on media effects research. In C. J. Hamelink & O. Linne (Eds.), Mass communication research: On problems and policies - The art of asking the right questions (pp. 97-120). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corp. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1995). Public opinion and rationality. In T. L. Glasser & C. T. Salmon (Eds.), Public opinion and the communication of consent (pp. 33—54). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Noelle-Neumann, E. (1999). The effect of the mass media on opinion formation. In D. P. Demers & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Mass media, social control, and social change: A macrosocial perspective (pp. 51-76). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Oakes, P. J ., Haslam, S. A., & Turner, J. C. (1994). Stereotyping and social reality. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers. O'Dea, T. F. (1966). The sociology of religion. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc. Oshagan, H. (1996). Reference group influence on opinion expression. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8(4), 335-354. Paik, H., & Marzban, C. (1995). Predicting television extreme viewers and nonviewers: A neural network analysis. Human Communication Research, 22(2), 284-306. Parker, E. C., Barry, D. W., & Smythe, D. W. (1955). The television-radio audience and religion. New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, Publishers. 118 Pippert, W. G. (1990). Worldly reporters and bom-again believers: How each perceives the other. In Q. J. Schultze (Ed.), American evangelicals and the mass media: Perspectives on the relationship between American evangelicals and the mass media (pp. 275-286). Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corp. Press, A. L., & Cole, E. R. (1999). Speaking of abortion: Television and authority in the lives of women. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Price, V., & Allen, S. (1990). Opinion spirals, silent and otherwise: Applying small group research to public opinion phenomena. Communication Research, 17(3), 369-392. Price, V., & Roberts, D. F. (1987). Public opinion processes. In C. R. Berger & S. H. Chaffee (Eds.), Handbook of communication science (pp. 781-816). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Rhine, R. J. (1967). Some problems in dissonance theory research on information selectivity. Psychological Bulletin, 68(1), 21-28. Riddle, D. W. (1931). The martyrs: A study in social control. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Roberts, A. E., Koch, J. R., & Johnson, D. P. (2001). Religious reference groups and the persistence of normative behavior: An empirical test. Sociological Spectrum, 21(1), 81-98. Roberts, M. K., & Davidson, J. D. (1984). The nature and sources of religious involvement. Review of Religious Research, 25(4), 334-350. Rockwood, T. H., Sangster, R. L., & Dillman, D. A. (1997). The effect of response categories on questionnaire answers: Context and mode effects. Sociological Methods & Research, 26(1), 118-140. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Difi‘usion of innovations (4th ed.). New York, NY: The Free Press. Rokeach, M. (1956). Political and religious dogmatism: An alternative to the authoritarian personality. Psychological Monographs, 70(18), 1-43. Rokeach, M. (1976). Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization and change. Washington, DC: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Rokeach, M. (1980). Some unresolved issues in theories of belief, attitudes, and behavior. In M. M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation 1979 (pp. 261-304). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Rokeach, M. (Ed.). (1960). The open and closed mind: Investigations into the nature of belief systems and personality systems. New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc. 119 Rokeach, M., & Restle, F. (1960). A fundamental distinction between open and closed systems. In M. Rokeach (Ed.), The open and closed mind: Investigations into the nature of belief systems and personality systems (pp. 54-70). New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc. Rokeach, M., Toch, H. H., & Rottman, T. (1960). The effect of threat on the dogmatization of Catholicism. In M. Rokeach (Ed.), The open and closed mind: Investigations into the nature of belief systems and personality systems (pp. 376- 388). New York, NY: Basic Books, Inc. Romanowski, W. D. (1990). Contemporary Christian music: The business of music ministry. In Q. J. Schultze (Ed.), American evangelicals and the mass media: Perspectives on the relationship between American evangelicals and the mass media (pp. 143-169). Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corp. Romanowski, W. D. (2000). Evangelicals and popular music: The contemporary Christian music industry. In B. D. Forbes & J. H. Mahan (Eds.), Religion and popular culture in America (pp. 105-124). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Roof, W. C. (1976). Traditional religion in contemporary society: A theory of local- cosmopolitan plausibility. American Sociological Review, 41 (2), 195-208. Roof, W. C. (1978). Community and commitment: Religious plausibility in a liberal Protestant church. New York, NY: Elsevier North-Holland, Inc. Rosenberg, M. (1951). The meaning of politics in mass society. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15(1), 5-15. Salmon, C. T., & Kline, F. G. (1985). The spiral of silence ten years later: An examination and evaluation. In K. R. Sanders, L. L. Kaid & D. D. Nimmo (Eds.), Political communication yearbook 1984 (pp. 3-29). Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Salmon, C. T., & Neuwirth, K. (1990). Perceptions of opinion "climates" and willingness to discuss the issue of abortion. Journalism Quarterly, 67(3), 567-577. Salmon, C. T., & Oshagan, H. (1990). Community size, perceptions of majority opinion and opinion expression. In J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig (Eds.), Public relations research annual (Vol. 2, pp. 157-171). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Salwen, M. B., Lin, C., & Matera, F. A. (1994). Willingness to discuss "official English": A test of three communities. Journalism Quarterly, 71(2), 282-290. 120 Schachter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46(2), 190-207. Schement, J. R., & Stephenson, H. C. (1996). Religion and the information society. In D. A. Stout & J. M. Buddenbaum (Eds.), Religion and mass media: Audiences and adaptations (pp. 261-289). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Deliberation or dispute? An exploratory study examining dimensions of public opinion expression. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 1 I (1), 25-58. Scheufele, D. A., & Eveland, W. P., Jr. (2001). Perceptions of 'public opinion' and 'public' opinion expression. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 13(1), 25-44. Scheufele, D. A., & Moy, P. (2000). Twenty-five years of the spiral of silence: A conceptual review and empirical outlook. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 12(1), 3-28. Scheufele, D. A., Shanahan, J ., & Lee, E. (2001). Real talk: Manipulating the dependent variable in Spiral of Silence research. Communication Research, 28(3), 304-324. Schmitt, K. M., Gunther, A. C., & Liebhart, J. L. (2004). Why partisans see mass media as biased. Communication Research, 31 (6), 623-641. Schultze, Q. J. (1990a). The invisible medium: Evangelical radio. In Q. J. Schultze (Ed.), American evangelicals and the mass media: Perspectives on the relationship between American evangelicals and the mass media (pp. 171-195). Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corp. Schultze, Q. J. (1996). Evangelicals' uneasy alliance with the media. In D. A. Stout & J. M. Buddenbaum (Eds.), Religion and mass media: Audiences and adaptations (pp. 61-73). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Schultze, Q. J. (Ed.). (1990b). American evangelicals and the mass media: Perspectives on the relationship between American evangelicals and the mass media. Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corp. Scott, J. (1989). Conflicting beliefs about abortion: Legal approval and moral doubts. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52(4), 319-326. Sears, D. O. (1968). The paradox of de facto selective exposure without preferences for supporting information. In R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg & P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 777-787). Chicago, IL: Rand McNally and Co. 121 Sears, D. O., & Freedman, J. L. (1967). Selective exposure to information: A critical review. Public Opinion Quarterly, 31(2), 194-213. Selnow, G. W. (1990). Values in prime-time television. Journal of Communication, 40(2), 64-74. Selnow, G. W., & Gilbert, R. R. (1993). Society's impact on television: How the viewing public shapes television programming. Westport, CT: Praeger. Shanahan, J., & Morgan, M. (1999). Television and its viewers: Cultivation theory and research. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Sherif, C. W. (1980). Social values, attitudes, and involvement of the self. In M. M. Page (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation 1979 (pp. 1-64). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press. Sherif, C. W., & Sherif, M. (Eds.). (1967). Attitude, ego-involvement, and change. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sherif, C. W., Sherif, M., & Nebergall, R. E. (1981). Attitude and attitude change: The Social Judgment-Involvement approach. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, Publishers. Sherif, M. (1953). The concept of reference groups in human relations. In M. Sherif & M. O. Wilson (Eds.), Group relations at the crossroads (pp. 203-231). New York, NY: Harper & Brothers, Publishers. Sherif, M., & Cantril, H. (1947). The psychology of ego-involvements: Social attitudes and identifications. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Sherif, M., & Hovland, C. I. (1961). Social judgment: Assimilation and contrast effects in communication and attitude change. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1956). An outline of social psychology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harper & Brothers. Smidt, C. E. (1989). "Praise the Lord" politics: A comparative analysis of the social characteristics and political views of American evangelical and charismatic Christians. Sociological Analysis, 50(1), 53-72. Smith, C., Emerson, M., Gallagher, 8., Kennedy, P., & Sikkink, D. (1998). American evangelicalism: Embattled and thriving. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Soukup, P. A., Buckley, F. J., & Robinson, D. C. (2001). The influence of information technologies on theology. Theological Studies, 62(2), 366-377. 122 Stark, R., & Bainbridge, W. S. (1979). Churches, sects, and cults: Preliminary concepts for a theory of religious movements. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 18(2), 117-131. Stark, R., & Bainbridge, W. S. (1985). The future of religion: Secularization, revival, and cult formation. Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Steensland, B., Park, J. 2., Regnerus, M. D., Robinson, L. D., Wilcox, W. B., & Woodberry, R. D. (2000). The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces, 79(1), 291-318. Stolberg, C. G. (2005, December 3). Nominee says his views on abortion would not affect his decisions. New York Times, p. A16. Stout, D. A., & Buddenbaum, J. M. (Eds.). (1996). Religion and mass media: Audiences and adaptations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Stout, D. A., Scott, D. W., & Martin, D. G. (1996). Mormons, mass media, and the interpretive audience. In D. A. Stout & J. M. Buddenbaum (Eds.), Religion and mass media: Audiences and adaptations (pp. 243-258). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Straw, C. (2001). "A very special death": Christian martyrdom in its classical context. In M. Cormack (Ed.), Sacrificing the self: Perspectives on martyrdom and religion (pp. 39-57). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Tajfel, H. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1982). Social identity and intergroup relations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The Social Identity Theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall, Inc. Tamney, J. B., & Johnson, S. D. (1984). Religious television in Middletown. Review of Religious Research, 25(4), 303-313. Tamney, J. B., Johnson, S. D., & Burton, R. (1992). The abortion controversy: Conflicting beliefs and values in American society. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 31(1), 32-46. Tankard, J. W., & Harris, M. C. (1980). A discriminant analysis of television viewers and nonviewers. Journal of Broadcasting, 24(3), 399-409. 123 Tichenor, P. J ., & Wackman, D. B. (1973). Mass media and community public opinion. American Behavioral Scientist, 16(4), 593-606. Tocqueville, A. D. (1955). The old regime and the French Revolution (S. Gilbert, Trans.). Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., Inc. (Original work published 1856). Toner, R. (2005, September 14). In complex dance, Roberts pays tribute to years of precedent behind Roe v. Wade. New York Times, p. A24. Tonnies, F. (2000). Ferdinand Tonnies on public opinion: Selections and analyses (H. Hardt & S. Splichal, Trans.). Lanham, England: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Torrey, R. A., Dixon, A. C., Harris, E., & Meyer, L. (Eds.). (1988). The Fundamentals: A testimony to the truth. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House. (Original work published 1909). Troeltsch, E. (1981). The social teaching of the Christian churches (O. Wyon, Trans.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1931). Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed) Social identity and intergroup relations (pp. 15-40). New York, NY. Cambridge University Press. Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behaviour. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes: Theory and research (Vol. 2, pp. 77-122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A., & McGarty, C. (1994). Self and collective: Cognition and social context. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20(5), 454-463. Tygart, C. E. (2000). Genetic causation attribution and public support of gay rights. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 12(3), 259-275. Umble, D. Z. (1990). Mennonites and television: Applications of cultivation analysis to a religious subculture. In N. Signorielli & M. Morgan (Eds.), Cultivation analysis: New directions in media efiects research (pp. 141-155). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications. Voskuil, D. N. (1990). The power of the air: Evangelicals and the rise of religious broadcasting. In Q. J. Schultze (Ed.), American evangelicals and the mass media: Perspectives on the relationship between American evangelicals and the mass media (pp. 69-95). Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corp. Wallis, R. (Ed.). (1975). Sectarianism: Analyses of religious and non-religious sects. London, England: Peter Owen Ltd. 124 Warren, H. (2001). Southern Baptists as audience and public: A cultural analysis of the Disney boycott. In D. A. Stout & J. M. Buddenbaum (Eds.), Religion and popular culture: Studies on the interaction of worldviews (pp. 169-186). Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press. Warren, H. (2002). The Bible tells me so: Depictions of race, gender, and authority in children's videos. Journal of Media and Religion, 1(3), 167-179. Waters, K. (2001). Vibrant, but invisible: A study of contemporary religious periodicals. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78(2), 307-320. Weber, M. (1963). The sociology of religion (E. Fischoff, Trans.). Boston, MA: Beacon Press. (Original work published 1922). Welch, K. W. (1981). An interpersonal influence model of traditional religious commitment. Sociological Quarterly, 22(1), 81-92. Welch, M. R., Johnson, C. L., & Pilgrim, D. (1990). Tuning in the Spirit: Exposure to types of religious TV programming among American Catholic parishioners. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29(2), 185-197. White, R. H. (1968). Toward a theory of religious influence. Pacific Sociological Review, 11(1), 23-28. Wilcox, S. A. (2003). Cultural context and the conventions of science journalism: Drama and contradiction in media coverage of biological ideas about sexuality. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 20(3), 225-247. Wildmon, D. E. (1985). The home invaders. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books. Wilson, B. R. (1959). An analysis of sect development. American Sociological Review, 24(1), 3-15. Wilson, B. R. (1970). Religious sects: A sociological study. New York, NY: McGraw- Hill Book Co. Wilson, B. R. (Ed.). (1967). Patterns of sectarianism: Organisation and ideology in social and religious movements. London, England: Heinemann Educational Books Ltd. Wood, W. (2000). Attitude change: Persuasion and social influence. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 539-570. Woodberry, R. D., & Smith, C. S. (1998). Fundamentalism et a1: Conservative Protestants in America. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 25-56. 125 Woodrum, E. (1988). Determinants of moral attitudes. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 27(4), 553-573. Wright, S. A. (1997). Media coverage of unconventional religion: Any "good news" for minority faiths? Review of Religious Research, 39(2), 101-115. Wuthnow, R. (1988). The restructuring of American religion: Society and faith since World War 11. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Wuthnow, R. (1990). Religion and television: The public and the private. In Q. J. Schultze (Ed.), American evangelicals and the mass media: Perspectives on the relationship between American evangelicals and the mass media (pp. 199-214). Grand Rapids, MI: The Zondervan Corp. Yip, A. K. T. (1997). Dare to differ: Gay and lesbian Catholics' assessment of official Catholic positions on sexuality. Sociology of Religion, 58(2), 165-180. Yip, A. K. T. (2004). Negotiating space with family and kin in identity construction: The narratives of British non-heterosexual Muslims. Sociological Review, 52(3), 336- 350. 126 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII uHjujjjjuIjljjjjujjjjm