1. Lazarsfeld The study of 1940 election campaign

2.  The dominant paradigm in the field since World War II has been, clearly, the cluster of ideas, methods, and findings associated with Paul F. Lazarsfeld and his school: the search for specific, measurable, short-term, individual attitudinal and behavioral "effects" of media content, and the conclusion that media are not very important in the formation of public opinion. -- Todd Gitlin, 1978 1

3.  Lazarsfeld was interested in and committed to this notion of propaganda  As the first examples of market research began to appear in Vienna in the 1920s, Lazarsfeld saw parallels between this market research and what he was trying to do with his socialist propaganda.  After becoming acquainted with one Austrian study of "why people bought various kinds of soap," Lazarsfeld said he became deeply drawn into what he saw was the methodological importance of such market studies, and how these market studies related to his own thinking about public opinion.

4.  Based on the hypodermic needle model  i.e. A message would be transmitted from the mass media to a 'mass audience', who would absorb the message  However, their investigations suggested that media effects were minimal, that the conception of a 'mass audience' was inadequate and misguided and that social influences had a major effect on the process of opinion formation and sharply limited the media's effect.

5. Limited effects  The study by Lazarsfeld concluded that only some 5% of people changed their voting behaviour as a result of media messages.  Their exposure to election broadcasts turned out to be a relatively poor predictor of their voting behaviour, particularly when compared with other factors such as their interpersonal communication with friends, union members, business colleagues and the political tradition they had grown up in.  This view of media effects came to be known as the ' limited effects paradigm ' of media influence.

6. Graphically represented

7.  A number of significant conclusions follow from the research:  our responses to media messages will be mediated through our social relationships, the effects of media messages being sharply 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 rôle 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 - typically such people use the mass media more than the average, mix more than the average across social classes and see themselves and are seen by others as having an influence on others

8. Influence of Lazarsfeld  in the 1992 General Election campaign both parties were keen to present 'facts' and 'true stories' in their TV campaign materials. Their aim was not really to persuade their opponents (they would very probably not watch the broadcasts anyway), but rather to provide the opinion leaders amongst their supporters with ammunition in support of their arguments down the pub, at work and so on  in preparation for the launch of the 'Poll Tax', the Conservative Party was keen to make contact with local councillors and other local opinion leaders in addition to the conventional media campaign  in the 1997 British election campaign it was apparent that the two main British parties were concerned to address their arguments to the small number of voters in winnable constituencies. Thus the election campaign was in effect addressed to around a quarter of a million voters only

9.  face-to-face communication is ideally also organised to support the mass media message - for example, in third world education programmes, people are brought together to watch a film, listen to a radio broadcast etc.  The evidence from anti-smoking campaigns, synthesized by Flay (1987 in Gauntlett (1995)) is that, whilst they are highly successful in providing information, with the result that most people are now ell informed of the dangers of smoking, they are not, by and large, successful in effceting permanent changes in behaviour.  Gauntlett refers in this connexion to the unmistakable consensus that 'the mass media may be effective for providing information and creating awareness, but that face-to-face channels are essential for behaviour change to be produced'