America appears to be experiencing what German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann termed in the 1970s as a “spiral of silence.” She argued that people often withhold their views on contentious issues if they feel the majority disagrees, creating an illusion of consensus and making compromise increasingly difficult.
To explore Americans’ hidden opinions, researchers at Populace used a method called the list experiment. Respondents were split into two groups: one received a list with three statements, and the other an identical list plus a fourth statement that represented a viewpoint the researchers wanted to test. By asking respondents how many statements they agreed with rather than which ones, the researchers estimated support for the sensitive fourth statement. In a separate public survey, a different set of respondents was directly asked if they agreed or disagreed with these statements.
Abortion, for instance, showed a significant gap between public and private views. Among Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim respondents, support for the statement “abortion should be legal in most cases” was notably higher in private. While 39% of Protestants publicly supported this view, 54% did so privately. Overall, Populace found that 55% of respondents publicly supported legal abortion, while an estimated 63% privately agreed.
The survey also revealed surprising similarities between Democrats and Republicans on “defunding the police.” Only 27% of Democrats and 6% of Republicans publicly supported the statement, while in private, support dropped to just 3% among Democrats and 1% among Republicans. Another stark finding was that Republicans and wealthier Americans were more likely to feel society was unfair privately than publicly acknowledged.
Distrust in government was another common area of silent agreement. Among Democrats, 36% publicly agreed that “the government tells the truth,” yet only 5% privately agreed. Similarly, 14% of Republicans publicly trusted the government to be truthful, compared to just 2% in private. Populace CEO Todd Rose emphasized the implications of this low social trust, which he argued erodes democratic health by promoting resentment and susceptibility to divisive rhetoric.
Some experts, however, argue that generalized questions about trust lack clarity. Gibson, a political scientist, believes questions like “most people can be trusted” are too vague, noting that context is essential for an accurate gauge of social trust.
Certain groups, such as Gen Z, political independents, and college graduates, showed the most divergence between public and private responses. This may be due to heightened awareness of social norms and the perceived costs of violating them. Gen Z’s heavy use of social media might contribute to this, as Rose argues it fosters a “false consensus” and makes young people wary of backlash for sharing unpopular views. For professionals, public disagreement could risk reputational damage or economic consequences, unlike for lower-income individuals who may already feel excluded from social circles. Interestingly, the Silent Generation reported the least self-censorship.
For some, the “spiral of silence” is felt acutely in daily life. Alessia Gonzalez, a bartender in a politically conservative area, refrains from expressing her personal views on Israel-Palestine at work, fearing repercussions. Similarly, Fernando, an advertising worker with a pro-Israel stance, avoids sharing his views with a colleague who vocally disagrees.
Self-censorship, also known as “self-silencing,” is pervasive across demographics. In a Populace-YouGov survey, 58% of respondents believed that most people are uncomfortable expressing honest opinions, while 61% admitted they had self-censored in the past year to avoid offense.
While suppressing polarizing opinions may prevent conflict, critics argue it weakens democratic debate. Gibson warns that “self-censorship damages deliberation, which is crucial for democracy.” Populace’s findings also suggest that as self-censorship grows, social trust declines.
Heading into a tight presidential election between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, polarization amplifies the fear of dissent, reinforcing self-censorship. Rose explained that people often perceive the loudest voices as the majority, discouraging honest dialogue and creating a public discourse that seems more divided than it actually is.
Ultimately, knowing our true opinions might help us find common ground. Rose concludes, “If we can build the courage to have open, respectful conversations, I think we’ll start uncovering a shared foundation to tackle the challenges we face as a nation.”
