2 Step Flow Theory
THE TWO-STEP FLOW MODEL OF COMMUNICATION
INTRODUCTION
The two-step flow of communication hypothesis was first formulated by → Paul F. Lazarsfeld and his colleagues in their classical study on the 1940 American presidential election (1944). It states that there is usually no direct influence of the mass media on the general public. Rather, “ideas often flow from radio and print to the opinion leaders and from them to the less active sections of the population” (Lazarsfeld 1944). This assumption, challenging the popular idea of strong direct media effects on the public (Stimulus–Response Model), turned out to be one of the most influential ideas in communication research from the 1940s to at least the 1960s.
THE THEORY
The power of the mass media therefore is indirect and is reduced by the influence of local opinion leaders. The power of media therefore is indirect and is reduced by the influence of local opinion leaders. First, opinion leaders who pay close attention to the mass media and its messages receive the information.
Opinion leaders pass on their own interpretations in addition to the actual media content.
The term ‘personal influence’ was intervening between the media’s direct message and the audience’s ultimate reaction to that message.
Opinion leaders are quite influential in getting people to change their attitudes and behaviours and are quite similar to those they influence.
ILLUSTRATION
Media rarely directly influence individuals.
People are not easily manipulated by media content
There is a two-step flow of media influence
Most people have developed strongly held group commitments such as political party and religious affiliations. That individual media messages are powerless to overcome
When media effects do occur they will be modest and isolated. They are somehow cut-off from the influence of their people. They are undermined by social crises.eg. Educated urban people.
MY TAKE ON THE THEORY
The theory suggests
INTRODUCTION
The two-step flow of communication hypothesis was first formulated by → Paul F. Lazarsfeld and his colleagues in their classical study on the 1940 American presidential election (1944). It states that there is usually no direct influence of the mass media on the general public. Rather, “ideas often flow from radio and print to the opinion leaders and from them to the less active sections of the population” (Lazarsfeld 1944). This assumption, challenging the popular idea of strong direct media effects on the public (Stimulus–Response Model), turned out to be one of the most influential ideas in communication research from the 1940s to at least the 1960s.
THE THEORY
The power of the mass media therefore is indirect and is reduced by the influence of local opinion leaders. The power of media therefore is indirect and is reduced by the influence of local opinion leaders. First, opinion leaders who pay close attention to the mass media and its messages receive the information.
Opinion leaders pass on their own interpretations in addition to the actual media content.
The term ‘personal influence’ was intervening between the media’s direct message and the audience’s ultimate reaction to that message.
Opinion leaders are quite influential in getting people to change their attitudes and behaviours and are quite similar to those they influence.
ILLUSTRATION
Media rarely directly influence individuals.
People are not easily manipulated by media content
There is a two-step flow of media influence
Most people have developed strongly held group commitments such as political party and religious affiliations. That individual media messages are powerless to overcome
When media effects do occur they will be modest and isolated. They are somehow cut-off from the influence of their people. They are undermined by social crises.eg. Educated urban people.
MY TAKE ON THE THEORY
The theory suggests