- Key People:
- Elihu Katz
- Related Topics:
- public opinion
- mass communication
two-step flow model of communication
-
What is the two-step flow model of communication?
The two-step flow model of communication, introduced in 1948 by Paul Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet, posits that interpersonal interactions exert a stronger influence on public opinion than mass media outlets anchor text.
This model suggests that media content initially reaches "opinion leaders," who then interpret and disseminate these messages to less active media consumers. These opinion leaders pick up information from the media and pass it to other members of the public. Thus, most people receive information through interpersonal communication rather than directly from mass media anchor text.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Who are opinion leaders in the two-step flow model?
In the two-step flow model of communication, opinion leaders are active media users who interpret and pass on the meaning of media messages to less-active consumers. These leaders influence public opinion more strongly through interpersonal interaction than mass media.
Developed in 1948 by Paul Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet, the model stipulates that opinion leaders collect and interpret media content before diffusing it to others. These leaders can be anyone others look to for guidance, not just prominent figures. They might be well-informed about local politics, foreign affairs, or real estate. The theory has faced criticisms for potentially oversimplifying the flow of information and for not fully accounting for the impact of television and the Internet.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How does information move between mass media and the public in this model?
In the two-step flow model of communication, mass media content initially reaches "opinion leaders," who are active media users. These leaders interpret and disseminate media messages to less-active consumers. Most people receive information through interpersonal communication with these opinion leaders rather than directly from mass media. This theory suggests that personal discussions and social circles have a stronger influence on decision-making than mass media alone.
However, some researchers argue that the two-step flow is an oversimplification, suggesting additional steps in the flow of information. They also note that the model was developed before the prevalence of television and the Internet, and more recent studies indicate that people now rely more on mass media than personal communication.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
How is the two-step flow model different from the one-step flow model?
The two-step flow model of communication, introduced in 1948 by Paul Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet, posits that mass media content initially reaches "opinion leaders," who then interpret and disseminate these messages to less active media consumers. This interpersonal interaction shapes public opinion more strongly than mass media alone.
This theory challenged the prevailing one-step flow model, which assumed mass media directly influenced a mass audience. The two-step model suggests that personal connections and discussions are more influential than direct media exposure. While the two-step flow model has been validated and tested, some researchers argue that it oversimplifies the flow of information and doesn't account for the complexities of media consumption in the age of television and the Internet.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
Why are opinion leaders important in shaping public opinions?
Opinion leaders are vital in shaping public opinion because they interpret and spread media messages to less active consumers. They can turn obscure problems into national issues by attracting media attention. These leaders often create symbols and slogans that resonate with the public, which the mass media then amplifies, establishing these ideas as the cornerstone of public opinion. Local opinion leaders also have a cumulative impact on public opinion. This two-step flow model emphasizes that interpersonal interaction is more influential than mass media in molding public opinion.
2 Britannica SourcesCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles. -
What are some real-world examples of the two-step flow model today?
The two-step flow model of communication states that interpersonal interactions have a stronger effect on shaping public opinion than mass media outlets. This model says that media content first reaches "opinion leaders" who interpret the information and pass it on to less active media consumers.
While the model was developed before the Internet era, it can still be observed today. For example, social media influencers can be seen as modern-day opinion leaders. They gather information from various sources and share their interpretations with their followers. This can impact their followers' opinions and behaviors. However, some researchers suggest the model is an oversimplification, as information flow can involve more than two steps and is not always a vertical flow from leaders to followers.
1 Britannica SourceCreated from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.
two-step flow model of communication, theory of communication that proposes that interpersonal interaction has a far stronger effect on shaping public opinion than mass media outlets.
The two-step flow model was formulated in 1948 by Paul Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet in the book The Peopleās Choice, after research into votersā decision-making processes during the 1940 U.S. presidential election. It stipulates that mass media content first reaches āopinion leaders,ā people who are active media users and who collect, interpret, and diffuse the meaning of media messages to less-active media consumers. According to the authors, opinion leaders pick up information from the media, and this information then gets passed on to less-active members of the public. This implies that most people receive information from opinion leaders through interpersonal communication rather than directly from mass media. Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet discovered that most voters in the 1940 election got their information about the candidates from other people who read about the campaign in the newspapers, not directly from the media. Lazarsfeld, Berelson, and Gaudet concluded that word-of-mouth transmission of information plays an important role in the communication process and that mass media have only a limited influence on most individuals.
The theory of the two-step flow of communication reversed the dominant paradigm in mass communication at the time. Before Lazarsfeldās study, it was assumed that mass media have a direct influence on a mass audience who consume and absorb media messages. Media were thought to significantly influence peopleās decisions and behaviours. However, the research done by Lazarsfeld and others showed that only about 5 percent of people changed their voting preference as a result of media consumption and that interpersonal discussions of political issues were more prevalent than consumption of political news within one typical day. Factors such as interpersonal communication with family members, friends, and members of oneās social and professional circles turned out to be better predictors of a personās voting behaviour than that personās media exposure. These findings came to be known as the ālimited effects paradigmā of media influence, explicated more fully by Joseph Klapper in The Effects of Mass Communication (1960), which guided mass communication researchers over the next five decades.
" height="20" alt="HEW Logo">
The theory of the two-step flow of mass communication was further developed by Lazarsfeld together with Elihu Katz in the book Personal Influence (1955). The book explains that peopleās reactions to media messages are mediated by interpersonal communication with members of their social environment. A personās membership in different social groups (family, friends, professional and religious associations, etc.) has more influence on that personās decision-making processes and behaviour than does information from mass media. Researchers of mass communication cannot therefore treat the public as a homogenous mass audience that actively processes and responds to media messages uniformly, as had been postulated by initial theories of mass communication, which assumed that audiences respond to media messages directly.
Since its formulation, the theory of the two-step flow of communication has been tested, and validated, on numerous occasions through replicative studies that looked at how innovations were diffused into society through opinion leaders and trendsetters. However, the theory came under some criticism in the 1970s and the 1980s. Some researchers argued that the process of a two-step flow is an oversimplification and that the actual flow of information from mass media to media consumers has more than two steps. For instance, additional research revealed that conversations based on media content are more frequent among opinion leaders themselves rather than among opinion leaders and less-informed individuals. This creates the extra step of opinion sharing among equally informed individuals, compared with only a vertical flow of information from opinion leaders to followers. Another criticism is the fact that the two-step flow model was formulated during a time when television and the Internet did not exist. Both original studies relied on peopleās responses to newspapers and radio broadcasts and concluded that interpersonal communication is more frequent than media consumption during an average day. Later studies of everyday behaviour in the era of television dominance seem to indicate the opposite. It was also found that only a small percentage of people discuss information they have learned from mass media with their peers. National surveys regarding peopleās main sources of information also indicate that people rely much more on mass media than on personal communication.