America appears to be experiencing what German political scientist Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann called a “spiral of silence” in the 1970s. Noelle-Neumann argued that people tend to avoid sharing their opinions on controversial subjects when they sense, often subconsciously, that most people disagree with them. Over time, this leads to the perception that majority views are dominant, limiting space for dialogue and compromise.
In reality, people may agree on more than they openly express. Using the list-experiment method, researchers at Populace aimed to measure people’s true views. They divided respondents into two groups, presenting both with lists of statements, but one group received a fourth statement related to a controversial topic, such as “I support school choice in public education.” Respondents were asked how many statements they agreed with without specifying which ones, allowing researchers to estimate private agreement on sensitive topics. In a separate public survey, other respondents were asked to directly state whether they agreed or disagreed with the same statements.
On abortion, for instance, Populace found that various religious groups showed higher support for legal abortion in private than in public. Only 39% of Protestants publicly supported legal abortion in most cases, but 54% did so privately. Among Muslims, 43% publicly favored it compared to an estimated 66% privately. Across all respondents, 55% publicly said abortion should be legal in most cases, while 63% privately agreed—a figure much higher than that reported in Pew and Gallup polls, which use more varied questioning methods.
Similarly, Democrats and Republicans were more aligned privately on defunding the police. Publicly, 27% of Democrats supported the idea, while only 3% did privately. Republicans showed similarly low support, with only 6% publicly in favor and 1% privately.
The survey also found that Republicans and wealthier individuals were likelier to feel society isn’t fair but kept these views private, likely due to a perception that Democrats are more publicly focused on fairness for marginalized groups. For example, 50% of Republicans publicly agreed that “we live in a mostly fair society,” but just 11% privately agreed.
Another shared sentiment across party lines was distrust of the government. Democrats especially differed in public and private responses, with 36% publicly trusting the government to be truthful, but only 5% privately believing so. For Republicans, 14% publicly expressed trust in the government, but only 2% did privately. Broadly, trust in major institutions, including government and media, remains historically low.
According to Todd Rose, CEO of Populace, low levels of social trust create resentment and encourage people to find scapegoats or follow demagogues. “Social trust is a phenomenal predictor of the health and vibrancy of democracies,” he said.
Not all agree that American society has fully broken down in trust. Some researchers argue that long-established surveys on trust, like asking whether “in general, most people can be trusted,” are too vague. James Gibson, a professor of government at Washington University, suggests that trust questions should offer more context.
Certain groups, including Gen Z, political independents, and college graduates, showed the most variation between public and private opinions in the Populace study. Gen Zers, 72% of whom reported self-censoring in the past year, may be particularly influenced by social media, which Rose argues can create a “false consensus.” Younger people are often more aware of the risks of harassment or “canceling” for expressing unpopular views. Higher-earning or more-educated individuals may also face reputational risks, as offending a customer, business partner, or social circle could have greater consequences.
Older generations, like the Silent Generation (born 1928-1945), reported the lowest levels of self-censorship. According to Gibson, openness to public debate could help reduce polarization and self-censorship. “If people are self-censoring, deliberation is compromised, and that’s very damaging to democracy,” he said. Populace’s study revealed that self-censorship often correlates with less trust in others.
As Election Day nears, Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump are locked in a tight race, showcasing America’s divisions. Experts suggest that polarization amplifies self-censorship, as people fear the repercussions of voicing minority views. “The loudest, most repeated voices are assumed to be the majority,” said Rose. As a result, public debates may paint an exaggerated picture of division.
The study concludes that bridging these divides requires more open dialogue. Rose emphasizes, “As we find the courage to be honest with each other, I think you’ll see a common ground emerge, giving us a foundation to tackle real problems.”
However, in practice, many people are still hesitant to express their opinions. Alessia Gonzalez, a 27-year-old bartender in Brooklyn, avoids political discussions at her job in a conservative neighborhood, fearing potential backlash from coworkers and customers. Similarly, Fernando, a Colombian advertising professional in New York, keeps quiet about his pro-Israel views, concerned about clashing with colleagues.
In the study by Populace and YouGov, 58% of respondents said they believed most people are uncomfortable expressing honest opinions, and 61% reported self-censoring in the past year. “Social norms have made it costly to express controversial views,” says Gibson, who believes the phenomenon is damaging for open debate, a critical element of a healthy democracy.
Ultimately, self-censorship creates a divide between public consensus and private beliefs, often hiding areas of potential agreement.