The theory originated from Lazarsfeld in 1940 who looked at at how, during an election, how effective the campainings were. These finding were publsihed in 1944 in The Peoples Choice. Their research was based on the simplistic Hypodermic Needle Theory which has said the media injects a message from the mass media to a mass audience in order to produce a desired response. On findings Lazasfeld foundthat the media effects were minimal and that it wasnt the effect of the campaign that made the public vote but the influence of a person they knew or an opinion leader. The conception of a mass audience was inadequet and misguided due to individuals having opinions towards the message. Therefore ruling that SOCIAL INFLUENCES have more of an effect and limits the effect of the media as the researched proved we are more likely to be influenced by somebody we know and trust.
LIMITED EFFECTSThe study concluded that only 5% of people changed their voting behaviour due to the effects of the media messages.Audiences exposure to election broadcasts turned behaviour out to be a relativley poor predictor of their voting behaviour particularly when compared to other factors such as interpersonal communication with friends and others. Other findings also confirmed that we are more likely to consume soemthing if it has been recommended by family or friends. For example what we watch or what we listen to can be influenced by people close to us.
Spotify is a popular music site which enables you and your friends to listen to music and view each others playlists. It is because of sites such as spotify that we can view what our friends are listening to in relation to music and we can be influenced by their music choice. Spotify use social netowrking sites such as Facebook to allow their Facebook friends also see what they have been listening to, in addition this could also influence an individual to seek the material their friend is listening to.
TWO STEP FLOW GENERAL CONCLUSIONS
According to Lazarsfeld Opinion Leaders play a vitally important role in the media, the conclusions are as followed:
Our responses to media messages will be mediated through our social relationships, the effects of our 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 recption of media messgaes, whereas in fact some play a more active role than others.
Receiving a message does not imply responding to it; nor does non-reception imple non-response because we may still recieve the message via interpersonal communication.
There are some people amongst the media audience who act as opinion leaders, they are seen by themselves and others that they are having an influence on others.
WHY ARE PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS MORE INFLUENTIAL THAN THE MEDIA?
The content and development of a conversation are less predictable than mass media message, because of this the reciever can not be as selective in advance he/she is able to be when choosing which media messages to attend to.
By direct questioning of the partner in the conversation, the assumptions underlying the conversation can be rapidly and accuratly established, which is not so in mass communication. In face to face interaction the communicator can rapidly adjust to the recievers personality. She/he has direct feedback as to the success of the communication, can correct misunderstandings and counter challanges.
This theory applies to real life and how you may be influenced to buy, listen to or persuaded to what you watch and listen to.
HOW THIS THEORY APPLIES TO MY WORK AND AN EXMAPLE OF THE THEORY IN USE
If I was to promote my music video via a tv advertisement or magazine advertisement the reciever may take an interest in my media and choose to view it via YouTube. From here they may like my music video and during a conversation with a friend or member of their family they may bring up the topic of my media influencing them to view it themselves if they havnt already seen it. Therefore It wasnt the magazine advertisement or the television advertisement that influenced the second participant in the conversation to view my media but the social influence of his/hers friend or family member - the opinion leader.
No comments:
Post a Comment