52

Between Media and Mass

From Personal Influence (1955)

Elihu Katz and Paul F. Lazarsfeld

lihu Katz (1926-) is the leading mass communications researcher of his generation.
Raised in Brooklyn, he studied sociology at Columbia on the GI Bill after serving as
a translator in Japan in the early occupational period. At Columbia, Katz was advised by Paul Lazarsfeld, took classes from Robert Merton, conducted research and wrote
a master's thesis with Leo Lowenthal, and inherited an important set of data from C.
Wright Mills. Katz also established what would become important, lifelong connections
with the new state of Israel (formed 1948), where he has taught part of the year since 1956
(at Hebrew University of Jerusalem) and served as founding director of Israeli Television
in 1968 (when the nation first acquired television). Katz has also taught at the University
of Chicago (1954-1969), the University of Southem California (1978-1992), and the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School (1993- present). He has published key work in
diffusion, audience studies, broadcasting in cross-national perspective, Israeli leisure and
sociallife, and broadcast media events.
Personallnfluence, published in 1955, is probably the most widely cited and influential
book of mass communications research during the postwar era. It began as a classic "administrative" study (see Lazarsfeld, p. 166)-of women in Decatur, Illinois, in 1945, funded by a
magazine that wanted to learn more about the decision-making behavior of its target audience. A number of researchers worked on it, including Milis, who left the project in a lasting
dispute with Lazarsfeld (one that continued through Mills's severe attack on Lazarfeld in
The Sociological lmagination [1959]). As a graduate student, Katz inherited the study, which
he wrote up and supplemented with an extensive discussion of interpersonal and mass
media research. The book solidified the idea of the "two-step flow" of communicationfrom mass media to opinion leaders, and from them to their friends-which carried a
reassuring, democratic quality: contrary to the darker pronouncements about a mass society of isolated people susceptible to propaganda, Katz and Lazarsfeld suggest that people
are actually more in.fluenced by their friends and acquaintances than they are by media.
This excerpt, from the book's first chapter, represents one of the more influential stories
about the history of the field of media study. While evocative and strategically useful, this
story neglects the variety of previous research represented in this reader. For Lazarsfeld's
biography, see page 166.
When peoplc first began to speculate about the sense that citizens would once again ha ve equal
effects of the rnass media, they showed two op- ACcess toan intima te, almost first-hand account of
posite inclinations. Sorne social commentators those matters which required their decision. Peothought the mass media would do nothlng less ple had lost contad with the ever-growing world,
than recrea te the kind of inforrned public opinion went this argument, and the mass media would
whlch characterized the "town meeting," in the put it back within reach. 1

358

Others saw sorne

view, the mass me
aiming at the total <
ciety. First the nev.
werc feared as po"
berstamp ideas up(
readers and listener
held that the news:
"got us into the wa1
saw in the Roosevl
"golden voice" on t
any direction. 2
Frorn one point of
of the function of tho
opposed. From ano
can be shown that 1
That is to say, those
the mass media as ;
and those who saVv
of evil design had "
of the process of ma
minds. Theirimage,f
rnass of rnillions of r
goers prepared to re
ondly, they pictured
and powerful stimu
elicit irnmediate res
of cornrnunication "'
kind of unifying fo1
vous system-reachi
in a society characte
cial organization anc
relations.3
This was the "moc
processes of commu
da research seems t
it first began, shortl:
radio, in the 1920's.
oped from an image
media which was in
same time, it also fot
of certain schools ol
theory. Thus, classica
century European sd
down of interpersona
trial society and the
of rernote, impersona
dorn sarnpling metho
testing techniques, an
approach to "represe
from the context of th(
ginnings of communi
psychology.

Katz and f.,.azarsfeld, Between Media and Mass

er of his generation.
e GI Bill after serving as
olumbia, Katz was adcted research and wrote
tcmt set of data from C.
rt, lifelong connections
rt of the year since 1956
ctor of Israeli Television
taught at the Universty
978-1992), and the Unts published key work in
rlive, Israeli leisure and
ely cited and nfluential
egan as a classic "admintois, in 1945, funded by a
:havior of its target audieft the project in a lasting
re attack on Lazarfeld in
herited the study, which
nterpersonal and mass
w" of communcation'iends-which carried a
nents about a mass socifeld suggest that people
than they are by media.
more influential stories
strategically useful, this
reader. Por Lazarsfeld's

,uJd once again have equal

t!most first-hand account of
~quired their decision. Peoth the ever-growing world,
md the mass media would
:h.l

Others saw something quite different. 1n their

view, the mass media looked as agents of evil
aiming at the total destruction of democratic society. First the newspaper, and later the radio,
were feared as powerful weapons able to rubberstamp ideas upon the minds of defenseless
readers and listeners. In the 1920's, it was widely
held that the newspapers and their propaganda
"got us into the war/' while in the 1930's, many
saw in the Roosevelt campaign "proof" that a
"golden voice" on the radio could sway mcn in
any direction.2
From one point of view, these two conceptions
of the function of the mass media appear widely
opposed. From another viewpoint, however, it
can be shown that they are not far apart at allr ~
That is to say, those who saw the emergence of
the mass media as a new dawn for democracy
and those who saw the media as instruments
of evil design had very much the same picture
of the process of mass communications in their
minds. Their image, first of all, was of an atomistic
mass of millions of readers, listeners and moviegoers prepared to receive the Message; and secondly, they pictured every message as a direct
and powerful stimulus to action which would
elicit irnmediate response. In short, the media
of communication were looked upon as a new
kind of unifying force-a simple kind of nervous system- reaching out to every eye and ear,
in a society characterized by an amorphous social organization and a paucity of interpersonal
relations.3
This "as the "model"-of society and of the
processes of communication- which mass media research seems to have had in mind when
it rst began, shortly after the introduction of
radio, in the 1920's. Partly, the "model" developed from an image of the potency of the mass
media which was in the popular mind. At the
same time, it also found support in the thought
of certain schools of social and psychological
theory. Thus, classical sociology of the late 19th
century European schools emphasize the breakdown of interpersonal relations in urban, industrial society and the emergence of new forms
of remote, impersonal social control. 4 La ter, random sampling methods, opinion and attitude
tcsting techniques, and a discipline based on an
approach to "representative" individuals lifted
from the context of their associations link the beginnings of communications research to applied
psychology.

359

Mass Media Research: The Study

of "Campaigns"
These were sorne of thc ideas with which mass
media research began. And as it proceeded, it
became traditional to divide the field of communications research into three major divisions.
Audience research-the study of how many of
what kinds of people attend to a given communications message or medium-is, historically,
the earliest of the divisions, and still the most
prolific. The second division is that of content
analysis, comprising the study of the language,
the logic and the layout of communications messages. And finally, there is what has been called
-rffect analysis or the study of the impact of mass
communications.
For sorne purposes, this three-way division is
useful. For other purposes, however- and, notably, for the purpose at hand-!t is misleading beca use it obscures the fact that fundamentally, all of communications research aims at the
study of effect. From the earliest theorizing on
this subject to the most contemporary empirical research, there is, essentially, only one underlying problem- though it may not always be
explicit- and that is, "what can the media 'do'?"
Justas the "model" we have examined poses this
question, so too, do the "clients" of mass media
research. Consider the advertiser, or the radio
executive, or the propagandist or thc educator.
These sponsors of research are interested, simply,
in the effect of their message on the public. And
if we find that they comnssion studies of the
characteristics of their audience, or of the content
of their message, clearly we have a right to assume that these aspects are connected, somehow,
with effects.
Moreover, if we reflect on these patrons of
research and their motivations for a moment
longer, we can sharpen this notion of effect. We
have been talking as if effect were a simple concept when, in fact, there are a verity of possible
effects that the mass media may have upon society, and several different dimensions alongwhich
effects may be classified.5 Now of all the different types of effects which have ever been speculated about or categorized, it is safe to say that
these sponsors of research-whose goals underlie so much of mass media research-have selected, by and large, just one kind of effect for almost exclusive attetion. We are suggesting that
the overriding interest of mass media research

360

\(

Part lll: The American Dream and Its Discontents

is in the study of the effectiveness of mass meHowever, these facts serve not only as a badia attempts to influence- usually, to change-- sis for the indirect measurement or imputing of
opinions and attitudes in the very short run. Per- effects: they also begin to specify sorne of the
haps this is best described asan interest in the ef- complexities of the mass communications profects of mass media" campaigns"-campaigns to cess. That is to say, the study of intermediate
influence votes, to sell soap, to reduce prejudice. steps has led to a better understanding of what
, Noting only that there are a variety.of other mass goes on in a mass media campaign-or, in othet
media consequences, which surely merit research words, to an understanding of the sequence of
attention but have not received it,6 let us proceed events and the variety of factors which "interwith this more circumspect definition clearly in vene" between the mass media stimulus and the
mind: Mass media research has aimed atan un- individual'S response. Thus, each new aspectinderstanding of how, and under what conditions, troduced has contributed to the gradual pulling
mass media "campaigns" (rather specific, short- apart of the scheme with which research began:
run efforts) succeed in influencing opinions and that of the omnipotent media, on one hand, sendattitudes.
"- ing forth the message, and the atomized masses,
on the other, waiting to receive it- and nothing
in-between.
Now let us turn to document these asserIntervening Variables and the Study of Effect
tions somewhat more carefully. A brief view will
6e taken of each of four factors that come in
If it is agreed that the focus of mass media rebetween- or, as we shall say, that "intervene"search has been the study of campaigns it can
between the media and the masses to modify the
readily be demonstrated that the severa! subdianticipated effects of communications. We shall
visions of research- audience research, contenh
analysis, etc.-are not autonomous at all but, in consider four such intervening variables: exposure, medium, content, and predispositions. Each
fact, merely subordina te aspects of this dominant
of these has become one of the central foci of reconcern. What we mean can be readily illustrated.
' search attention (audience research, media comConsider, for example, audience research-the
parison studies, content analysis, and the study
most prolific branch of mass media research. One
of a ttitudes). Each con tribu tes to our understandway of looking at audience research is to see it
ing of the complexity of mass persuasion camonly asan autonomous researcharena, concemed
paigns. Treating these factors will set the stage
with what has been called fact-gathering or bookfor the introduction of another (the most recently
keeping operations. We are suggesting, however,
introduced) of these intervening variables, that
that audience research may be viewed more apof interpersonal relations, with which we shall
propriately as an aspect of the study of effect, in
be particular!y concerned.
the sense that counting up the audience and examining its characteristics and its likes and dislikes is a first step toward specifying what the
Four Intervening Variables in the Mass
potential effect is for a given medium or mesCommunication Process
sage. In other words, if we do not lose sight of
the end problem which is clearly central to this The four variables we shall consider contribute,
field, audience research falls right into place as under sorne conditions, to facilitating the flow
an intermedia te step.
of communications between media and masses
And so, it turns out, do each of the other major and, under other conditions, to blocking the flow
branches of mass media research. One might say of communications. It is in this sense, therefore,
that the intellectual history of mass media re- that-we call them intervening?
First, there is the variable of "exposure" (or "acsearch may, perhaps, be seen best in terms of the
cess," or "attention") which derives, of course,
successive introduction of research concernssuch as audience, content, and the like--which from audierice research.8 Audience research has
are basically attempts to impute effects by means shown that the original mass communications
of an analysis of sorne more readily accessi- "model" is not adequate, for the very simple reable intermediate factors with which effects are son that people are not exposed to specific mass
media stimuli as much, as easily, oras randomly
associated.

ash
ma)
the
litio
trie~

able
unt<
the
fact
in tl
m es
iza t
stan
is o
m os
mw
d ier
fow

and
thos
and
m er
vari
A

d ev
ter<
falls
Wlu
if it
pea
Psyc
oftl:
typl
far <
prO<
whi

lan~

vari
anal
forc
inar
re la
fere
Tot
imp
prO<
obs.
ysis
calt
(e.g
etc.:

Klltz and Lawrsfeld, Between Media and Mass

ts
acts serve not only as a baneasurement or imputing of
~gin to specify sorne of the
mass comm.unications pror, the study of intermediate
etter understanding of what
tedia campaign-or, in other
standing of the sequence of
iety of factors which "internass media stimulus and the
se. Thus, each new aspect inbuted to the gradual pulling
! with which research began:
!nt media, on one hand, sendge, and the atomized masses,
tg to receive it-and nothing

to document these assertiecrefully. A brief view will

>f four factors that come in
!Shall say, that "intervene"and the masses to modify the
of communications. We shall
intervening variables: expoent,and predispositions. Each
e one of the central foci of reldience research, media comntent analysis, and the study
ontributes to our understanddty of mass persuasion cam,ese factors will set the stage
tof another (the most recen ti y
;e intervening variables, that
lations, with which we shall
cerned.
1

g Variables in the Mass

nication Process
we shall consider con tribute,
ons, to facilitating the flow
between media and masses
mditions, to blocking the flow
~ It is in this sense, therefore,
ervening7
ariableof"exposure" (or "ac~ which derives, of course,
h.8 Audience research has
ginal mass communications
uate, for the very simple reanot exposed to specific mass
uch, as easily, or as randomly

361

as had been supposed. Exposure or non-exposure compared with "opinions"; the cardinal rule of
may be a product oftechnological factors (as is "don't argue"; the case for and against presenting
the case in many pre-industrial countries),9 po- "one side" rather than "both sides" of controverlitical factors (as in the case of totalitarian coun- sia] material; the "documentary" vs. the "comtries), economic factors (as in the case of not being mentator" presentation; the damaging effect of
able to afford a TV set), and especially of vol- a script at "cross-purposes" with itself; etc. Imuntary factors-that is, simply not tuning in. In portant techniques have been developed for use
the United States, it is, typically, this voluntary in this field, and the controlled experiment has
factor that is most likely to account for who is also been widely adopted for the purpose of obin the audience for a particular communication serving directly the effect of the varieties of commessage. Perhaps the most important general- munications presentation and content. The charization in this area- at least as far as an under- acteristic quality of these techniques is evident:
standing of the process of effective persuasion . they concentrate on the "stimulus," judging its
is concerned-is that those groups which are effectiveness by referring either to more or less
most hopefully regarded as the target of a com- imputed psychological variables which are assomunication are often least likely to be in the au- ciated with effects orto the actual"responses" of
dience. Thus, educational programs, it has been those who ha ve been exposed to controlled varifound, are very unlikely to reach the uneducated; ations in presentation.
and goodwill programs are least likely to reach 1 A fourth set of mediating factors, or interventhose who are prejudiced against another group; ing variables, emerges from study of the attitudes
and so on. 10 It is in this sense that we consider the and psychological predispositions of members
mere fact of exposure itself a major intervening of the audience, insofar as these are associated
variable in the mass communications process.
with successful and unsuccessful campaigns. In
A second focus of mass media rescarch which this area, mass media research has established
developed very early was the differential charac- very persuasively what social psychologists ha ve
ter of the media themselves. The research which confirmed in their laboratories-that an individfalls into this category asks the general question: ual's attitudes or predispositions can modify, or
What is the difference in the cffect of Message X sometimes completely distort, the meaning of a
if it is transmitted via Medium A, B or C? The ap- given message. For example, a prejudiced person
pearance of Cantril and Allport's {1935) book, The whose attitude toward an out-group is strongly
Psychology of Radio, called attention toa whole set entrenched may actively resist a message of tolof these "media comparison" experiments. Here, erance in such a way that the message may been
type-of-medium is the intervening variable inso- be perceived as a defense of prejudice oras irrelfar as the findings of these studies imply that the evant to the subject of prejudice entirely.13
process of persuasion is modified by the channel
Just as prior attitudes on issues must be
which delivers the message. 11
studied, so attitudes toward the media themContent-in the sense of form, presentation, selves must be accounted for if we are fully to
language, etc.-is the third of the intervening understand the role of psychological predisposivariables on our list. And while it is true that the tions in modifying the effectiveness of commuanalysis of communications content is carried out nications. Here research on predispositions joins
for a variety of reasons, by and large, the predom- with the previous subject of media differences.
inant interest of mass media research in this area Thus, many people regard the radio as more
relates to the attempt to explain or predict dif- trustworthy than the newspaper, and others ha ve
ferences in effect based on differences in content. the opposite opinion. In the same way, in many
To be more precise, most of the work in this field of the highly politicized countries abroad, there
imputes differences in intervening psychological is a great intensity of feeling about the relative
processes-and thus, differences in effects-from trustworthiness not just of the several media in
observed differences in content.12 Content anal- general but of each newspaper and each radio
ysis informs us, for example, of the psychologi- station. 14 Similarly, attitudes toward the sources
cal techniques that are likely to be most effective to which information and news are creditcd are
(e.g., repetition, appeal to authority, band-wagon, likely to affect the acceptance of a mass media
etc.); the greater sway of "facts" and "events" as message. The very large number of studies which

362

Part 1IJ: The American Dream and Its Discontents

fall under the heading of "prestige suggestion"

bear on this problem. 15
So far, then, we ha ve examined four intervening factors-exposure and predisposition from
the receiving end, media differences and content
differences from the transmission end-and each
gives a somewhat better idea of what goes on in
between the media and the masses to modify the
effects of communkations. 16 That is, each time
a new intervening factor is found to be applicable, the complex workings of the mass persuasion
process are illuminated somewhat better, revealing how many different factors ha veto be attuned
in order for a mass communications message to
be effective. Thus, the image of the process of
mass communications w ith which researchers set
out, that the media play a direct influencing role,
has had to be more and more qualified each time
a new intervening variable was discovered.
We propose now to tum to the newly accented
variable of interpersonal relations. On the basis of
severa! pioneering communications studies, and
as we shall see later, on the basis of an exploration
of the bearing of the field of small group research
on the field of mass media rescarch, it appears
that communications studies ha ve greatly underestimated the extent to which an individual's social attachments to other people, and the character of the opinions and activities which he shares
with them, will influence his response to the mass
media. We are suggesting, in other words, that the
response of an individual toa campaign cannot
be accounted for without reference to his social
environment and to the character of his interpersonal relations. This is the matter which we want
to consider most carefully for the reason that it
promises to be a key link in the chain of intervening variables, and beca use it promises also to
promote the convergence of two fields of social
science research- the one dealing with macroscopic mass communications, the other with microscopic social relations.

Notes
1. Robert E. Park, pioneer American sociologist, and a former joumalist himself, attributes
his motivation to joumalis ts in his 1925 essay on
the newspaper: "The motive, conscious or unconscious, of the writers and the press in all this is
to reproduce as far as possible, in the city, the
conditions of Jife in the village. ln the village

everyone knew everyone else.... ln the village

gossip and public opinion were the main sources
of social control." Similarly, in his 1909 dassic,
Social Organization, C. H. Cooley writes rhapsodically on this subject. " ... ln a general way they
[the changes in communication and in the whole
system of society' since the beginning of the 19th
century] mean the expansion of human nature,
that is to say, of its power to express itself in social wholes. They make it possible for society to
be organized more and more on the higher faculties of man, on intelligence and sympathy, rather
than on authority, caste and routine. They mean
freedom, outlook, indefinite possibility. The puble consciousness, instead of being confined as
regards its more active phases to local groups,
extends by even steps with that give-and-take of
suggestions that the new intercourse makes possible, until wide nations, and finally the world itself, may be induded in one lively mental whole."
See Park (1949), p. 11 and Cooley (1950), p. 148.
Note: Citations appearing in the text and in footnotes will contain only author's name anda date
of publication (e.g., Park 1949). The appended
bibliography should be consulted for the full
reference.
2. Berelson (1950), p. 451.
3. For a comparatively recent statement of
this point of view, and for a vivid portrayai
of the traditional image of the mass audience,
see Wirth (1949). Wirth also deals with tite
two kinds of mass media impact which we
ha ve just described-the "manipulative" and thc
"democratic"-assuming the inherent potencyof
the media which underlies both. An equally clear
statement is Blumer (1946).
4. In "The Study of the Primary Group," Shil'
(1951) discusses this main trend in 19th century
European sociology which was reflected in the
notion that "any persistence of traditionally rcg
ulated informal and intima te relations was ... an
archaism inherited from an older rural soci('t
or from a small town handicraft society." Di'
cussing early American sociology, Shils indica! ...
that there was a comparatively greater inten:
in the primary group as a subject for study. T'
points out, however, that Cooke's well-knOI'I
contribution and the interest displayed by Anwr
ican sociologists in voluntary associations, PI\''
sure groups, etc. were counterbalanced by an em
phasis on the disintegration of the primary grour
in urban society such as may be found in ll
work of W. l. Thomas, Park and his associah ,

and others. Severa! secl

lowing chapter will dn
excellent essay,
5. Lazarsfeld (1948),
tinguishcd sixteen diffe
cross-tabulating four ty::
uli" and four types o:
The responses are dassi
dimension- immediate .
fects, long term effects a
This dassification makes
an investigation of the efl
on the outbreak of the G
lar kinds of concepts and 1
and that this kind of effec
from a study of the effect
ilization, on one hand, an
a subway car-card camp
tudes, on the other. Many.
ments about mass media 1
chapter are based on this
(1950).
6. The lazarsfeld (194.
the footrtote above indic
the study of "immediate
sponses to concerted ma~
is only one of many diffe.
fect. There are, furthermor
have been speculated ab(
readily within Lazarsfeld'!
severa! such effects-pre<
term sort-which seem acc
ing of empi.rk_al investigati<
example, in McPhee (1953)
Katz, E. (1953). It is imporl
of these longer range effe<
been looked into promiset<
the mass media much mon
effects. The latter, as we s:
the impression that the me
tual as far as persuasion iJ
(i.e., non-marketing) matte
reasons why marketing inl
more effective and therefor
to grips with than other ~
tempts are d iscussed by WiE
the heading of "canalizatim
Merton (1949). Wiebe's pa::
below, p. 29. See also Cartw
7. Our use of this phras.
fused with the technical use
ogy of survey analysis whe1
.1ble" refers toa "test" factor