Spiral of Silence

                                               Spiral of Silence

                                Spiral of Silence theory was originally proposed by German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann in 1974, Spiral of silence is the term meant to refer to the tendency of people to remain silent when they feel that their views are in opposition to the majority view on a subject. The theory posits that they remain silent for a few reasons. For example, the fear of being in isolation if they voiced their opinion which is different than the opinion that majority of people hold. The major fear that they have is being out casted or thrown out of the society or losing their jobs if they voiced their opinion which differs and that their different opinion may lead to more lethal negative reaction or consequences from the people. Spiral of Silence in simple term means one being so completely lost in the spiral because of his fear of stating his opinion or views which may not be liked or accepted by people. The spiral is created or reinforced when someone in the perceived opinion majority speaks out confidently in support of the majority opinion, hence the minority begins to be more and more distanced from a place where they are comfortable to voice their opinion and begin to experience the aforementioned fears.

                         The closer an individual thinks that their opinion resides to the held majority opinion, the more likely they are to be willing to voice it in public discourse. A few other important tenets to mention; this theory rests strongly on the idea that the opinion must have a distinct moral component (i.e. abortion), because obviously, no one will experience the spiral of silence trying to talk out what toppings to get on their pizza with roommates.

                             The theory has some weaknesses as well and two of the most notable are those of the vocal minority and the internet. People on Internet, even if in less minority, voicing their opinion are hard to go miss. Second, the vocal minority – you know those people, they may be the only one who thinks that cats need the right to vote, but they won’t shut up about it and are seemingly outside of the effects of the Spiral of Silence.

Rationalization Trap

It will just be true enough if I said that almost all of us hate to be corrected or that we hate to be looked stupid for unexplainable actions and in order to cover up our tracks and the mess up, we come up with hundreds of excuses and made of stories and all of this, what for? Just to save ourselves from the embarrassment. And in this entire act, we, my friend, voluntarily fall into the Rationalization Trap.

In technical term, Rationalization Trap occurs when we act to reduce dissonance it can end up as a whole set of justifications and rationalizations that lead to ridiculous or even immoral actions. Like Pinocchio's nose, one defense leads to another until we are all out of shape.

The trick is to avoid unthinking reaction, tolerating dissonance for long enough to be able to decide on a more appropriate action.

Rationalization Trap is also a part of Cognitive Dissonance. The need to justify our extremely stupid actions and save the embarrassment, we often do the most unthinkable and choose to disappear with the wind by taking wrong steps. Now, the one can avoid falling into the Rationalization Trap simply by taking a moment, stopping for a while, taking a deep breath and thinking. Seeing all the possibilities and measuring all the outcomes. You must let your brain reach every corner of this thought and calculate the result of your actions beforehand. One can avoid falling into this trap by just asking himself these questions;

·        Do I really need to go down that spiral of justification?

·        For whom?

·        Did I get there through the trickery of someone else?

Ask yourself these question and think whether lying and coming up with an excuse just to cover up your stupid action will be worth it or not? Because eventually, one thing will surely lead to another and then another and then soon enough, you’ll face a fall due to this trap of Rationalization.

Social Exchange Theory

                                            When we start calculating the impact and outcome of a relationship and then act according to the result, is what Social Exchange Theory is all about. Social exchange theory was introduced in 1958 by the sociologist George Homans with the publication of his work "Social Behavior as Exchange". He defined social exchange as the exchange of activity, tangible or intangible, and more or less rewarding or costly, between at least two persons. Social exchange theory highly speaks that our social behavior is the result of an exchange process. And the real purpose of this exchange is to maximize benefits and minimize costs. Benefits are what we achieve out of the relationship, good things such as passion, love, friendship, social support, fun, care, return of the favor and etc, were as Costs is the negative response that we receive from the relationship such as loss of money, less or no return of same affection or favors, time consuming, one sided or meaningless. In deciding what is right, we often develop a comparison level against which we weigh the give and take ratio. This level will differ between relationships, with some being more giving and others where we get more from the relationship. They will also differ drastically in what is given and received.

                       According to this theory, people weigh the potential benefits and risks of social relationships. When the risks outweigh the rewards, people will terminate or walk out of that relationship.

Social exchange theory eventually suggests that we often take the benefits and minus the costs, in order to come to the conclusion of how much a relationship is worth. The relationships in which the benefits outweigh the costs are the Positive ones, were as the relationships in which the costs are greater than the benefits are the negative ones.