This analysis explores the transformation of public communication in the United States from a two-step flow of messages passing from mass media through a social mediation process, to a one-step flow involving the refined targeting of messages directly to individuals. This one-step flow reflects both a transformation in communication technologies and fundamental changes in the relations between individuals and society. Opinion leaders who played a pivotal role in the two step paradigm are increasingly less likely to “lead” because they are more likely to reinforce latent opinions than to reframe them. And because the mass media in the one-step flow are increasingly fragmented and differentiated, they contribute to the individualizing process through shrinking audiences, demographically driven programming, and transmitting targeted political advertising and news spin.
Bell, Daniel. 1975. The end of American exceptionalism. The Public Interest41:193-224.
2.
Bennett, W. Lance. 1989. Marginalizing the majority: Conditioning public opinion to accept managerial democracy. In Manipulating public opinion, ed. Michael Margolis and Gary Mauser, 321-361. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
3.
Bennett, W. Lance. 1998. The uncivic culture: Communication, identity, and the rise of lifestyle politics. PS: Political Science & Politics31:741-761.
4.
Bennett, W. Lance. 2003. Communicating global activism: Strengths and vulnerabilities of networked politics. Information, Communication & Society6 (2): 143-168.
5.
Bennett, W. Lance. 2004. Political communication and democratic governance: From mass society to personal information networks. Paper presented at the conference on Democracy in the Twenty-First century: Prospects and Problems, University of Illinois, Urbana, October 24-26.
6.
Bennett, W. Lance. 2005. Civic learning in changing democracies: Challenges for citizenship and civic education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September 1-4.
7.
Bennett, W. Lance, and Jarol B. Manheim. 2001. The big spin: Strategic communication and the transformation of pluralist democracy. In Mediated politics: Communication in the future of democracy, ed. W. Lance Bennett and Robert M. Entman, 279-298. New York: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Berelson, Bernard R., Paul F. Lazarsfeld, and William N. McPhee. 1954. Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
9.
Berger, Peter L., and Thomas Luckman. 1966. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
10.
Bimber, Bruce. 2003. Information and American democracy: Technology in the evolution of political power. New York: Cambridge University Press.
11.
Blumler, Jay G., and Dennis Kavanaugh. 1999. The third age of political communication: Influences and features. Political Communication16 (3): 209-231.
12.
Burt, Ronald S.1999. The social capital of opinion leaders. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science566:37-54.
13.
Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American voter. New York: John Wiley.
14.
Converse, Philip E.1964. The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Ideology and discontent, ed. David Apter. New York: Free Press.
15.
Davis, Richard. 1999. The web of politics: The Internet's impact on the American political system. New York: Oxford University Press.
16.
Eliasoph, Nina. 1998. Avoiding politics: How Americans produce apathy in everyday life. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Entman, Robert M.1993. Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of Communication43:51-58.
18.
Ewen, Stuart. 1996. PR! A social history of spin. New York: Basic Books.
19.
Festinger, Leon. 1957. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
20.
Fishbein, Martin. 1967a. A behavior theory approach to the relations between beliefs about an object and the attitude toward the object. In Readings in attitude theory and measurement, ed. Martin Fishbein, 389-400. New York: John Wiley.
21.
Fishbein, Martin. 1967b. A consideration of beliefs and their role in attitude measurement. In Readings in attitude theory and measurement, ed. Martin Fishbein, 257-266. New York: John Wiley.
22.
Fishkin, James. 1991. Democracy and deliberation: New directions for democratic reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
23.
Giddens, Anthony. 1991. Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in late modern society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
24.
Gitlin, Todd. 1978. Media sociology: The dominant paradigm. Theory and Society6:205-253.
25.
Hardy, Bruce W., and Dietram A. Scheufele. 2005. Examining differential gains from Internet use: Comparing the moderating role of talk and online interactions. Journal of Communication55:71-84.
26.
Harik, Ilia F.1971. Opinion leaders in the mass media in rural Egypt: A reconsideration of the two-step flow of communication hypothesis. American Political Science Review65:731-740.
27.
Howard, Philip. 2006. New media campaigns and the managed citizen. New York: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Huckfeldt, Robert, Paul Allen Beck, Russell J. Dalton, and Jeffrey Levine. 1995. Political environments, cohesive social groups, and the communication of public opinion. American Journal of Political Science39:1025-1054.
29.
Inglehart, Ronald. 1997. Modernization and postmodernization: Cultural, economic, and political change in 43 societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30.
Iyengar, Shanto. 1991. Is anyone responsible?Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
31.
Iyengar, Shanto, and Donald Kinder. 1987. News that matters: Television and American opinion. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
32.
Iyengar, Shanto, Robert Luskin, and James Fishkin. 2004. Deliberative public opinion in presidential primaries: Evidence from an online deliberative poll. Paper presented at the conference Voice and Citizenship, University of Washington, Seattle, April 23-24.
33.
Katz, Daniel. 1960. The functional approach to the study of attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly24:163-204.
34.
Katz, Elihu, and Paul F. Lazarsfeld. 1955. Personal influence: The part played by people in the flow of mass communications. New York: Free Press.
35.
Kelman, Herbert C.1961. Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly25:57-78.
36.
Kim, Joohan, Robert O. Wyatt, and Elihu Katz. 1999. News, talk, opinion, participation: The part played by conversation, in deliberative democracy. Political Communication16:361-386.
37.
Klapper, Joseph T.1960. The effects of mass communication. New York: Free Press.
38.
Krugman, Herbert E.1965. The impact of television advertising: Learning without involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly29:349-356.
39.
Klapper, Joseph T.1966. The measurement of advertising involvement. Public Opinion Quarterly30:583-596.
40.
Klapper, Joseph T.1971. Brain wave measures of media involvement. Journal of Advertising Research11:3-10.
41.
Krugman, Herbert E., and Eugene L. Hartley. 1970. Passive learning from television. Public Opinion Quarterly34:184-190.
42.
Kubey, Robert, and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. 1990. Television and the quality of life: How viewing shapes everyday experience. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
43.
Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
44.
Lane, Robert E.1959. Political life. New York: Free Press.
45.
Lazarsfeld, Paul F., Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet. 1944. The people's choice. New York: Columbia University Press.
46.
Lemert, James B.1981. Does mass communication change public opinion after all? A new approach to effects analysis. Chicago: Nelson-Hall.
47.
Manheim, Jarol B.1976. Can democracy survive television?Journal of Communication26: 84-90.
48.
McCombs, Maxwell D., and Donald E. Shaw. 1972. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly36:176-187.
49.
Mills, C. Wright. 1956. The power elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
50.
Mutz, Diana. 1998. Impersonal influence: How perceptions of mass collectives affect political attitudes. New York: Cambridge University Press.
51.
Nimmo, Dan. 1970. The political persuaders: The techniques of modern election campaigns. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
52.
Norris, Pippa. 2001. Digital divide: Civic engagement, information poverty, and the Internet worldwide. New York: Cambridge University Press.
53.
Patterson, Thomas. 2002. The vanishing voter: Public involvement in an age of uncertainty. New York: Random House.
54.
Petty, Richard E., and John T. Cacioppo. 1986. The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 19, ed. Leonard Berkowitz, 123-205. New York: Academic Press.
55.
Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. 2004. News audiences increasingly politicized. http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=215.
56.
Price, Vincent, and Joseph Capella. 2002. Online deliberation and its influence: The Electronic Dialogue Project in Election 2000. IT & Society1:303-329.
57.
Putnam, Robert D.2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
58.
Rheingold, Howard. 2002. Smart mobs: The next social revolution.Cambridge, MA: Perseus.
59.
Robinson, John P.1976. Interpersonal influence in election campaigns: Two-step flow hypothesis. Public Opinion Quarterly40:304-319.
60.
Shah, Dhavan V., Nojin Kwak, and R. Lance Holbert. 2001. “Connecting” and “disconnecting” with civic life: Patterns of Internet use and the production of social capital. Political Communication18:141-162.
61.
Sherif, Carolyn W., and Muzafer Sherif. 1967. The social judgment-involvement approach to attitude and attitude change. In Social interaction, ed. Muzafer Sherif, 342-352. Chicago: Aldine.
62.
Subramani, Mani R., and Balaji Rajagopalan. 2003. Knowledge-sharing and influence in online social networks via viral marketing. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery46:300-307.
63.
Tannenbaum, Percy H.1955. The indexing process in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly19:292-302.
64.
Tewksbury, David. 2003. What do Americans really want to know? Tracking the behavior of news readers on the Internet. Journal of Communication53:694-710.
65.
Turow, Joseph. 1997. Breaking up America: Advertisers and the new media world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
66.
U.S. Census Bureau. 1999. Media usage by consumers, 1992-1999. Statistical abstract of the United States. Figure 18.1. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
67.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Multi-media audiences—Summary 2000. Statistical abstract of the United States. Table 911. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
68.
Waller, Angie. 2003. Data mining the Amazon. N.P. Weiman, Gabriel. 1982. On the importance of marginality: One more step into the two-step flow of communication. American Sociological Review47:764-773.
69.
Zaller, John R.1992. Nature and origins of mass opinion. New York: Cambridge University Press.
70.
Zarsky, Tal Z.2006. Online privacy, tailoring, and persuasion. In Privacy and technologies of identity—A cross-disciplinary conversation, ed. Katherine Strandburg and Daniela Stan Raicu, 209-224. Berlin: Springer.
