Why might what people say publicly differ from what they really think?
A public statement is not always a reliable window into private opinion, especially when the job, security or belonging to a group depends on the “right” answer. A man can praise the authorities to avoid conflict, save the benefit or because he believes that opposition is meaningless. He can also keep quiet about support if he moves among critics.
When many adapt public speech, the government and citizens get the wrong idea of the mood of society, so the appearance of consent is further expanded. But it should not automatically be claimed that everyone is acting: support can be sincere, partial or variable. That is why surveys, anonymous questions, behavior and conversations in safer circumstances should be viewed together, with the recognition that no method completely reveals the hidden “true will”.
Hidden opinions are difficult to measure. Even anonymous surveys and indirect questions can be wrong and do not reveal a single 'true will' of all people.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
Explain how the system works
Kuran, T. (1991), „Now Out of Never: The Element of Surprise in the East European Revolution of 1989“, World Politics 44(1): 7–48.
- Contribution to this answer
- The Koran shows how people can be against the system privately for years, and publicly act as if they support it because everyone has their own risk threshold for open opposition. Therefore, the regime can seem almost invincible until the moment when several people come forward publicly and start a chain in which others suddenly realize that they are not alone.
review more research
Kuran, T. (1995), Private Truths, Public Lies: The Social Consequences of Preference Falsification, Harvard University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- The Koran calls this mechanism a falsification of preferences: people under social or political pressure publicly display an attitude that is different from what they privately want. The consequence is not only an incorrect image of the individual the whole society begins to get the wrong image of itself.
long-term direct monitoring of political life
Wedeen, L. (1999), Ambiguities of Domination: Politics, Rhetoric, and Symbols in Contemporary Syria, University of Chicago Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Wedeen shows that public repetition of regime messages does not have to mean that people are convinced of them at all. In Syria, the obvious improbability of some rituals was part of their political function: people show that they know how to behave publicly, without having to believe privately what they are saying.
research that checks more closely what the cause is
Buckley, N., Marquardt, K. L., Reuter, O. J. i Tertytchnaya, K. (2024), „Endogenous Popularity: How Perceptions of Support Affect the Popularity of Authoritarian Regimes“, American Political Science Review 118(2): 1046–1052.
- Contribution to this answer
- Buckley, Marquardt, Reuter and Tertytchnaya give an important fence: not every change in expressed support is just an act. In experiments in Russia, when people got information that Putin’s popularity was relatively low, some of them really became less supportive additional tests indicate that it was not just a cover-up of a private attitude.
analysis of surveys
Geddes, B. i Zaller, J. (1989), „Sources of Popular Support for Authoritarian Regimes“, American Journal of Political Science 33(2): 319–347.
- Contribution to this answer
- Geddes and Zaller also show that support for authoritarian rule can be real, not just coerced: on Brazil, they find that the way that regime information affects citizens depends on political information people with a middle level of political attention are often most susceptible to influence, while highly informed people see propaganda more and resist it more easily.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →