Personal Influence Theory (2-Step Flow Theory)

The personal influence theory was drawn from Paul Lazarsfeld's, Bernard Berelson's, and Hazel Gaudet's famous analysis of the US Presidential elections in 1940. The two-step flow of information hypothesis was generated from the People's Choice research, which these three social scientists undertook in 1944. These researchers aimed to discover how media influenced audience opinions. They were startled to discover that this was not the case, and personal contacts were indicated more frequently as influencing their voting preferences than radio or newspapers. Informal conversations with political opinion leaders assisted voters in finalizing their voting preferences. As a result, the personal influence or two-step theory contradicts the hypodermic needle or magic bullet idea, which says that people are passive media consumers who are directly influenced by mass media.

Two-Step Flow Theory

The Two-Step Theory was founded by Paul Lazarsfeld and Elihu Katz, and their book Personal Influence (1955) is the functional theory's textbook. According to the two-step hypothesis, the majority of people are indirectly affected and informed by the media via opinion leaders in society. The bulk of people base their opinions on media message analysis and interpretation. 'View leaders' are powerful and well-informed individuals who, when exposed to a specific piece of media content, interpret it and generate their own opinion. They now spread their opinion to others in their social circle, who become 'opinion followers.' In contrast to mainstream media, these thought leaders have access to elite media sources.

The two-step flow of communication concept proposes that ideas travel from mass media to opinion leaders and then to the general public. The two-step information flow known as 'personal influence' refers to the process that occurs between the media's direct message and the audience's reaction. In terms of interests, personality, and socioeconomic level, these opinion leaders are comparable to those they influence. They have a respected standing in society, and people look to them for ideas, information, and guidance. They persuade others to modify their attitudes and beliefs.

Multi-Step Flow Theory

The Multi-Step Flow Theory modified the Two Step Flow Theory. It was discovered that media impact can be multidirectional, and it does not always have to be downwards. It can also go upwards or even backwards to the media. The change in name was prompted mostly by opinion leaders who are more than just a second hand. This gave rise to the term "Multi Directional" because the multistep involved more than one opinion leader, which may be two, three, four, five, or even six people. Often, the information that reaches the audience is quite different from the initial piece of information. That is, opinion leaders who spread information add their own interpretation, giving it a new meaning and distorting the facts.

In the above Figure, Step1a and 1b, information flows concurrently to Opinion Leaders, Opinion Receivers/Seekers, and Information Receivers via mass media. Opinion Seekers approach Opinion Leaders for information and advice. Information receivers are people who do not influence or are impacted by others. Step 2 involves the transmission of information and influence from Opinion Leaders to Opinion Receivers/Seekers. Step 3 completes the two-way interaction by demonstrating the transmission of knowledge and influence from Opinion Receivers to Opinion Leaders.

The audiences here are engaged because they provide feedback to the media, recommending, praising, or condemning ideas or events. There is also peer-to-peer discussion, in which audiences with similar viewpoints share thoughts with one another.

The multi-step flow is also known as the diffusion of innovations theory, which adds another level and knowledge to it. This anticipates that the media and interpersonal encounters will supply information while also influencing opinion and judgment. Its emphasis is on the media disseminating information to the point where the audience may be thrown off balance because the message or information does not correspond to their culture or beliefs.  Opinion leaders have a role in this by engaging in face-to-face explanations with the people, either to advise or help them gain cognition.