Validating the Willingness to Self-Censor Scale II

Inhibition of Opinion Expression in a Conversational Setting

Bibliographic Data

ID12971015
AuthorsAndrew F Hayes (0000-0002-8329-1696, The Ohio State University, corresponding author), Brian R Uldall (University of Hawaii System), Carroll J Glynn (The Ohio State University)
Year2010
Volume4
Issue3
Pages256-272
Publication date2010-08-31
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueCommunication Methods and Measures (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1931-2458 • E-ISSN: 1931-2466
PublisherTaylor & Francis (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/19312458.2010.505503
OpenAlexW2053313178
LanguageEN
Citations received14
References cited40

CitationHayes, Glynn, and Shanahan (2005a) introduced the Willingness to Self-Censor Scale as a measure of the extent to which a person uses cues about the climate of opinion when deciding whether to publicly voice opinions. The study reported here provides new validation evidence, collected during actual rather than hypothetical discussions. Each participant interacted with two confederates about a controversial topic. The confederates were trained to produce a discussion climate that was either consistent or inconsistent with the participant's own opinion on the topic. The manipulation of the climate of opinion affected opinion expression only among dispositional self-censors (i.e., those scoring relatively higher on the scale), even after controlling for dispositional shyness. As expected, people who scored relatively low were unaffected by information about the climate of opinion. These results further attest to the construct validity of the Willingness to Self-Censor Scale. Notes 1The electrodes were connected to a device that recorded the participants' electrodermal response during the procedure, but these data are not pertinent to the purpose of this paper and are not discussed further. 2It is unlikely that the experimenter could have destroyed confederate blindness by subtly and/or unconsciously communicating to the confederates the condition the participant was assigned to. Very little time elapsed between when the experimenter glanced at the participant's response to the question and when he left the room so the confederates could deliver their scripts, and he cued then as to which script to enact when he was out of sight of the confederates. Regardless, because both the confederates and the experimenter were blind to the participants' scores on the WTSCS, there is no way any kind of subtle communication of experimental condition to the confederates could artifactually produce an interaction between willingness to self-censor and the climate of opinion, the central test of the construct validity of the WTSCS. 3It is important to note that expression of an opinion counter to the opinion the participant privately expressed at the beginning of the study (on the questionnaire) was not considered opinion expression for the purpose of our analysis. Publicly expressing an opinion inconsistent with a privately held belief but consistent with the opinion of those toward whom the expression is directed is conformity and is treated here as a form of self-censorship (cf.,CitationHayes, 2005a). In this study, we cannot distinguish between a conformity response and expression of an opinion that reflects real attitude change. We did ask all respondents during the debriefing whether they still believed what they said they believed about the terror screening system at the beginning of the study. Fifty nine (92%) of the participants said they had not changed their minds. Of those five who said they changed their opinion, four nevertheless expressed opinions consistent with their privately stated beliefs the first opportunity they were given during the procedure. The remaining participant never publicly expressed any opinion whatsoever. 4The exclusion of participants who fail a manipulation check is a fairly common procedure in experimental studies (for recent examples, see CitationDunn, Biesanz, Human, & Finn, 2007; CitationPlaks & Stecher, 2007; CitationReich, Green, Brock, & Tetlock, 2007). Although it is tempting to try to salvage the data from these five by using their perceptions of the opinion climate rather than which condition they were assigned to, doing so would eliminate the interpretational advantages afforded by random assignment. These five participants would have essentially self-selected into a condition, so we could not be sure that any effect of the manipulation was not due in part to other factors correlated with perceptions, rendering this a purely correlational study with all the interpretational ambiguities inherent in such a study. Furthermore, that these five could not correctly identify the opinion climate when 92% of the participants could suggests they may have been distracted or were not attentive during the procedure, which leads us to question the quality of their data. We did re-run the analysis including these participants and found the results were not substantively affected by their exclusion. 5We reconducted the analysis substituting an interaction between shyness and opinion climate for the interaction between WTSC and opinion climate. This interaction was not significant, suggesting that the differential effect of the climate of opinion manipulation as a function of WTSC did not also occur for shyness. This result compliments the existing literature (e.g., CitationHayes, 2005a, Citation2005b) attesting to the discriminant validity of the WTSC scale

Conformity · Construct (python library · Expression (computer science · Scale (ratio · Scripting language · Willingness to communicate · Communication in Education and Healthcare · Computer Science · Psychology · Social and Intergroup Psychology · Social Media and Politics · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub