Two Step Flow Theory

Two Step Flow Theory - Lazarsfeld 1940

The two step flow theory was found after a study of the 1940 American election campaign. In 1940 Lazarsfeld etc. conducted the first full scale investigation of the effects of political mass media.

The theory says that media does not have an effect on individuals until someone they know and trust talks about it and makes it relevant. These people are the opinion leaders. We looked at this video to understand the theory.

The importance of social influence

Their research was originally based on the simplistic hypodermic needle model of media influence, whereby it was assumed that a message would be transmitted from the mass media to a 'mass audience', who would absorb the message.
Lazarsfelds investigations suggested that media effects were minimal, and that audiences did not respond to a campaign as such but were more influenced by a person they knew or an opinion leader.
The conception of a 'mass audience' was inadequate and misguided due to individuals having opinions towards a message.
Social influences had a more effect on the process of opinion formation and limited the media's effect. The research found that we are more likely to respond to people we trust and know.

Limited effects
The study by Lazarsfeld concluded that only 5% of people changed their voting behavior as a result of media messages.Audiences exposure to election broadcasts turned out to be a relatively poor predictor of their voting behavior. This view of media effects was confirmed in a variety of other investigations demonstrating that as individuals we are more likely to consume something if it is recommended by friends /family or people we know. For example what we are influenced to watch or listen to.

General conclusions
Conclusions follow from their research:

Our responses to media messages will be mediated through our social relationships, the effects of media messages being limited by interpersonal relationships and group membership. 

It is misleading to think of receivers as members of a 'mass audience' since that implies that they are all equal in their reception of media messages, whereas in fact some play a more active role than others.

Receiving a message does not imply responding to it; nor does non-reception imply non-response (since we may still receive the message via interpersonal communication)

There are some people amongst the media audience who act as opinion leaders they see themselves and are seen by others as having an influence on others.

Why is personal interaction more influential than the media?
The content and development of a conversation are less predictable than mass media messages. Consequently, the receiver cannot be as selective in advance as (s)he is able to be when choosing which media messages to attend to.

In a face-to-face conversation, the critical distance between the partners is less than in mass communication.

By direct questioning of the partner in the conversation, the assumptions underlying the conversation can be rapidly and accurately established, which is not so with mass communication.

In face-to-face interaction the communicator can rapidly adjust to the receiver's personality. (S)he has direct feedback as to the success of the communication, can correct misunderstandings and counter challenges.