Two-Step and Multi-Step Flow

The two-step flow of communication hypothesis states that personal influence exercised by other people normally plays a more critical role in everyday decision making than information obtained from mass media. This hypothesis is opposed to the one-step flow notion that media can have a direct, immediate, and powerful influence on what people think and do. The two-step flow hypothesis was initially formulated by Paul F. Lazarsfeld and his colleagues based on a 1940 survey of voters. People who changed their mind or made their decision late in the presidential campaign were more likely to say that they had been influenced by other people rather than by the mass media.

The two-step flow hypothesis was refined in a 1955 publication by Elihu Katz and Lazarsfeld based on a survey of 800 women in Decatur, Illinois. In addition to politics, the Decatur study looked at decision making in the areas of marketing, movies, and fashion. The Decatur research focused on locating and investigating people who exercised influence over decisions made by others. These people were defined as opinion leaders—persons who routinely influence others through networks of personal relationships. Opinion leaders were thought to be positioned as gatekeepers—they made greater use of media, they critically screened media content, and they passed along only the information and ideas that they thought were useful. Findings indicated that opinion leaders were found at every level of society. Their influence [Page 970]appeared to mostly flow horizontally—that is, opinion leaders were more likely to routinely influence people who shared their status in society.

From its conception, the two-step flow hypothesis sparked considerable debate concerning the relative power of media to influence individuals. When first formulated, the power of media for both good and ill was widely presumed to be pervasive. Political propaganda disseminated by media was thought to be so effective in persuading average individuals to adopt totalitarian political beliefs and practices that the survival of democracy as a form of government was threatened. The two-step flow hypothesis implied that political propaganda delivered by mass media could not be successful unless opinion leaders were first converted. Thus, opinion leaders constituted an important limitation on the power of media. This meant that sudden, unexpected shifts toward totalitarianism were unlikely even during times of crisis. The hypothesis also had important implications for advertisers. It meant that advertising campaigns should be targeted toward opinion leaders at every level of society.

The two-step flow hypothesis can be seen as a part of a larger set of ideas that gained currency during the 1940s and 1950s. These ideas included the rediscovery of the influence of social groups as well as a growing recognition of the importance of local or grassroots leaders. These ideas were supported by empirical research and provided cautiously optimistic views of the social order in the United States at a time when the subversive power of Communist propaganda was widely feared.

The success of the two-step flow hypothesis may have been due as much to the theory's compatibility with popular social theories of the 1950s as to verification based on a consistent body of empirical findings. In fact, empirical research provided mixed support for the hypothesis even in the data reported by Katz and Lazarsfeld. Over the years, research on the hypothesis has been frustrated by the difficulty of conceptualizing and measuring opinion leadership using survey research methods. Inconsistent findings encouraged frequent reformulations of the hypothesis and led to the development of multi-step flow models.

...