v A SYNTHESlS 70F CORRELATES 0F OPINION LEAD-:ERSHlP Thesis for the Degree of M. A. MECHJGAN STATE UNIVERSXTY SALAH A. GQHAR 1967 un- LIB R A R Y . 11111111111111111111111111111 L. I Ma» scare E 3 1293 10381 4897 Universlt)’ DATE DUE ‘ ABSTRACT A SYNTHESIS OF CORRELATES OF OPINION LEADERSHIP Salah A. Gohar The Opinion leader is of central importance to the process of diffusion of ideas and innovations. He is defined as the person who actively seeks to influence others by the information, Opinion, or advice he provides. He is also defined as the person whom other persons ask for information, Opinion, or advice. These are the active and passive roles for the Opinion leader. The present study emphasizes the former definition of Opinion leader. Opinion leadership, throughout the present study, is looked at as influence process and is broken down into four conceptual stages: qualification for Opinion leadership, motivational-perceptual, situational influences, and reinforcement. A potential opinion leader is a person who has certain personality attributes and behavioral characteristics which qualify him for Opinion leadership. In order for him to initiate an influence attempt, a potential Opinion leader has to be sufficiently motivated and must be perceived by other persons as a potential Opinion leader. The situation should also be favorable to encourage the potential opinion leader to initiate an influence attempt. The Outcomes of an influence attempt made by a potential opinion leader may or may not be favorable. If they are favorable the opinion leadership tendencies will be reinforced. If, on the other hand, the Salah A. Gohar outcomes are unfavorable, the potential opinion leader may be forced to modify his strategy or abandon the idea of becoming an Opinion leader. There existsa considerable body of research done in the area of Opinion leadership. The present study indicates that almost all past and present research dealing with opinion leadership focussed on just one of be four conceptual stages in the process of Opinion leadership. Most researchers have been preoccupied with determining what the characteristics of Opinion leaders are and with predicting opinion leadership from the knowledge of just a few of such characteristics. Almost no attempt has been made to include the motivational, perceptual, and situational factors in our investigations and prediction formulas. Ignoring those aSpects has hampered our understanding of the dynamics of opinion leadership as a process. Several correlates of opinion leadership are generally indicated by empirical research. Opinion leaders were generally found to be different from their followers in terms of education, social status, innovativeness, and communication behavior. Many studies, however, have led to contradictory results and this may be attributed to several reasons including the influence of extraneous variables on the relation- ship we seek to establish, the diversity of ways of Operationalizing Opinion leadership and other related variables, the subjectivity of measure- ment, and the wide variations among research settings. Most important is, perhaps, the fact that most researchers have tended to classify their respondents into two categories; Opinion leaders and opinion followers. These two categories are not mutually exclusive as was Salah A. Gohar empirically indicated. This classification has obscured a third category of persons who are both leaders and followers and tend to display the characteristics of both. Therefore, it is quite possible that Opinion leaders in most studies are not Opinion leaders in the pure sense and their characteristics and personality attributes are a mixture of those of Opinion leaders and Opinion followers. Further research is needed especially in the area of motivations and the situational determinants of Opinion leadership. This is believed to be a necessary step toward improving our predictions and understanding of the dynamics of Opinion leadership. It is suggested that we improve and modify our measurement tools in order to be able to differentiate Opinion leaders from other types of persons. The present thesis emphasises the need for more refinement of the concept of opinion leaders and contributes toward this goal. A SYNTHESIS OF CORRELATES OF OPINION LEADERSHIP By Salah A. Gohar A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Communication 1967 M"; ”V #99“ /e7 Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Communication, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree. 57% WW Acknowledgments The author is indebted to Dr. Everett M. Rogers, his academic advisor and thesis supervisor, for his guidance and suggestions. Gratitude is also expressed to Dr. Verling Troldahl for working on the thesis committee and to Mr. Gordon Whiting, Director of the AID/MSU Project in Brazil, for his counsel and COOperation. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION . . . II OPINION LEADERSHIP . Opinion Leader: Opinion Leadership Concepts Related to Opinion Leadership Summary . . . . III OPINION LEADERSHIP RECONCEPTUALIZED Four Conceptual Stages in the Process of Opinion Leadership Summary . . . . IV RELEVANT VARIABLES AND RESEARCH FINDINGS Definition Identification and Measurement of The Four Stages Reconsidered . Research Findings and Relevant Variables First Stage . Second Stage Third Stage . Fourth Stage Summary . . . . V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION REFERENCES CITED . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY OF OPINION LEADERSHIP RESEARCH Page 12 15 17 20 20 21 21 31 38 39 #3 M7 55 S7 LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1 Summary of Correlates of Opinion Leadership . . . . . 28 FIGURE LIST OF FIGURES Page Paradigm of Stages in the Process of Opinion Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Classification of Opinion Leaders-Followers . . . . 52 Classification of Opinion Leaders—Seekers . . . . 52 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The term "Opinion leader” was first utilized by Lazarsfeld and others1 in lQHO, and has been widely used since that time. Many writers have used a variety of terms which tend to have something in common with the term ”Opinion leader". Lionberger used the term "key communicator"; Wilkening, "informal leaders”; Sheppard, "information leaders”; Merton "influencers"; Ross "sparkplugs"; and Lewin used the term "gatekeeper”. One common factor that tends to characterize all of these roles so-named seems to be their ability to influence the decisions made by others. An Opinion leader may be defined in two ways. First, he may be looked at as the person who is sought by others for information, Opinion, or advice. Secondly, an opinion leader may be defined as the person who seek§_to influence others through the information, Opinion, or advice that he provides. Whichever way we look at the Opinion leader, we find him a source of influence. Sometimes, he is an active influencer, and at other times he is a passive influencer, depending upon whether he is the seeker or the sought. The process of opinion leadership may be looked at along similar lines. It is a process where a person known as an Opinion leader tries to influence his audience by transmitting to them some kind of message in the form of information, Opinions, or advice. Research on opinion leadership has generally followed two main directions: (I) that of the diffusion of new ideas; and (2) the flow 2 of influence. The diffusion of new ideas as an approach is concerned mainly with the study of the methods and techniques by which information about new ideas is received from external sources and transmitted to the members of a social system. The flow of influence approach to opinion leadership focuses its attention on how information from the mass media is received by those who are exposed to it and how such information is then transmitted to others in a way that is likely to influence their knowledge or behavior or change their attitudes. Present-day efforts to induce technical and cultural change in less developed nations show less than what is expected in terms of development and modernization. This is especially true in areas where professional change agents undertake the entire responsibility for implanting the new ideas. On the other hand, the experience of several change agencies has shown that where change agents are successful in locating opinion leaders in local communities and adequately utilizing their energies in diffusing new ideas, significant gains and prOgressoften are achieved. It is for this reason that attempts are being made by change agents to eXplore the nature of opinion leadership. The purpose of the present thesis is to add to our understanding of Opinion leadership. Opinion leadership is looked at as a process and will be broken down into a number of conceptual stages. Each stage will be analyzed in terms of its components and outcomes. An effort will be made to identify the elements and variables which seem to be Operative at each stage. Past and present research findings will be reviewed to support, or challenge, the line of understandingéflfiithink- ing as expressed in this theme. CHAPTER II OPINION LEADERSHIP Definitions, Measurement, and Related Concepts Opinion Leader: A Definition An opinion leader may generally be described in two ways: 1. He is the person from whom other persons ask for information, interpretation, and/or advice. Rogers2 defined the Opinion leader as that individual to whom others in the same or outside social system go in search of information and advice. He uses the term opinion leader to refer to those who are influentials in approving or disapproving new ideas flowing in their social systems. 2. He is the person who actively seeks to influence other persons by providing information, interpretation, and/or advice. The two definitions differ in that the first one perceives the opinion leader as one who is sought by others. He is thus a passive person. The second definition stresses the idea that the Opinion leader actively seeks to influence others. He is not a passive person who is always sought. Past literature on opinion leaders does not clearly make this differentiation. It is believed that opinion leaders are not necessarily active or passive, but rather, are both active and passive depending, of course, on the situation. 3 they experimentally In a recent study by Troldahl and Van Dam differentiated three types of reSpondents; the Opinion givers, the Opinion askers, and the inactives. Wright and Canteru followed almost the same approach and differentiated three types of respondents; the u Opinion leaders, the opinion seekers, and the Opinion avoiders. Opinion avoiders are being defined as the persons who appear to escape the interaction situations. Wright and Canter found a sizeable overlap among the three categories. For example, 68 per cent of the Opinion leaders in the area of U.S. Foreign Affairs were found to be Opinion seekers, 6 per cent Opinion avoiders, and 16 per cent were neither seekers nor avoiders. Opinion leadership is defined as interpersonal influence exercized in a situation through a communication process toward the attainment of certain goalss. This definition seems to include both active and passive roles of Opinion leaders without clear differentiation. Identification and Measurement of Opinion Leadership The way we identify Opinion leaders will be affected by the way we define Opinion leaders. It was indicated that opinion leaders may be defined in two ways: as persons who actively seek to influence others, or as persons who are sought by others for advice or Opinion. The former View of Opinion leaders implies asking persons whether or not they have sought to influence others, while the latter view implies asking them whether or not they have been sought by others. Perhaps it is more accurate to ask both kinds of questions in order to increase the precision of measurement. Three methods are often utilized for identifying opinion leadersS: l. Sociometric Method The sociometric method consists of asking the members of a social system to identify those persons to whom they often go for advice or information about a Specified subject. This method is more applicable to a research design where all members of a social system are interviewed, rather than where a relatively small sample within a larger universe is contacted. The sociometric method seems to follow the definition of opinion leader as a passive person who is sought by others. 2. Key Informants Method The key informants method consists of asking key informats in a given social system to designate the Opinion leaders. The informants are selected subjectively as persons likely to know who the Opinion leaders are. The major disadvantage of this method is that it is subject to agreat deal of error due to human biases. It is also possible that persons picked as informants are not really so. 3. Self-Designated Method This method consists of asking persons a series of questions the answers to which are eXpected to indicate the extent to which they perceive themselves as Opinion leaders. It seems to stress the individual respondent's perception of himself as both active and passive Opinion leader without sufficient differentiation between the '6“: roles. The method is subject to a great amount of subjectivity and is dependent upon the accuracy of the respondents' perception of themselves. In a recent study of lus dairy farmers in Central Ohio, all three methods of measuring opinion leaders were used7. Self-designating Opinion leadership scores were correlated +.300 with the number of socio- metric choices, and +.6u0 with composite opinion leadership ratings 7 by four key informants. The number of sociometric choices was correlated +.867 with the composite key informants' ratings. All three correlations were significant at the .01 level but were far from unity. Opinion leadership, like most concepts in the field of communication, does not lend itself easily to quantification and measurement. Earlier attempts at the self—designating measurement of opinion leadership8 involved answers to two questions: I. Has anyone sought your advice recently? 2. Have you given advice to anyone recently? This method has been criticised on the grounds that it does not provide for a check on the validity of the answers. Rogers9 in his Ohio study used a scale composed of six questions: 1. During the past six months, have you told anyone about some new farming practices? 2. Compared with your circle of friends, are you: a) more or b) less likely to be asked about new farm practices? 3. When you and your friends discuss new farm ideas, what part do you play? a) mainly listen b) try to convince them of your ideas. u. Thinking back to your past discussion about some farming practices... a) Were you asked of your opinion on new practices? b) Did you ask someone else? 5. Which of these happens more often? a) Tell your neighbors of some new ideas. 8 b) They tell you of new ideas. 6. Do you have the feeling that you are generally regarded by your neighbors as a good source of advice about farm practices? This scale has proved to have two advantages; it is adaptable to any form of Opinion leadership investigation, and it yields a much higher degree of reliability than the two-item scale. In an on-going reserach project, Diffusion of Innovations in Rural Societies, financed by the U.S. Agency for International DeveIOpment and conducted by the research staff of the Department of Communication at Michigan State Universitylo, Opinion leadership variables are being measured by sociometric questions about agricultural innovations in general and four or five specific agricultural innovations that have recently diffused in the villages. Data obtained by sociometric methods are being checked and compared with data obtained by other methods of identifying opinion leaders to achieve greater reliability. Concepts Related To Opinion Leadership There are several concepts related to Opinion leadership in the sense that they are often utilized in research investigafions dealing with Opinion leaders in order to clarify our understanding of Opinion leadership and facilitate its measurement. The following few concepts are perhaps the most relevant to our discussion of Opinion leadership: 1. Concentration of Opinion leadership Concentration of opinion leadership may be defined as the degree to which one or more persons in a given social system possess Opinion leadership in greater strength than other persons in the systemll. 2. Homophily HomOphily is defined as the tendency of peOple who are similar in some reSpects to communicate. Homophily in interpersonal communication with respect to a given attribute will vary with the nature of communication behavior and the type of interpersonal relationship that occur between the seeker and the sought such as informal friendly association, evaluation of a source of information, or seeking expert information.ll ' Homophily and its Opposite, heterophily, seem to Operate under two different sets of conditions. In a situation involving seeking information, persons will tend to interact and communicate with those who are perceived as more competent and knowledgeable than themselves. The seeker in this case, before he initiates an interaction, must perceive a kind of superiority and competence in the person he seeks. On the other hand, where we have a friendship kind of interaction, we will find that seekers are likely to look for persons who are equal to them in some respects. Therefore, a greater degree of homophily is to be eXpected in the latter case. 3. Monomorphic-Polymorphic Opinion Leadership Some opinion leaders exert their influence in one specific area such as public affairs, agriculture, or health. This kind of Opinion leadershin was termed by Merton5 as “monomorphic”. Polymorphic opinion leadership, on the other hand, is defined as the degree to which a single leader is sought for information and advice about a variety of tOpics. Research done in the context of deveIOped societies indicates that there is generally little overlap among the different types of opinion 10 12 leaders . Marcus and Bauerl3 reanalyzed the data gathered by Katz and Lazarsfeldll and found that the overlap is real and significant. It may be argued, however, that as life becomes more complicated and the division of labor becomes sharper we may eXpect a lesser overlap, that is, more of the monomorphic type of opinion leadership. There is little research dealing with this area done in traditional societies. However, Rogers and van Esl” found that Opinion leadership in three modern Colombian peasant communities was not more monomorphic than opinion leadership in two traditional communities. 4. Gatekeeper A gatekeeper is defined as a person whose position in a social system enables him to practice some kind of control over the flow of information and ideas reaching the members of the social system. The influence he exerts upon the members of the social system tends to be basically formal while that of the opinion leader tends to be mainly informal. Research done in me area of gatekeeping and opinion leadership has shown that there is often an overlap between gatekeeping and opinion leadership. An individual who is a gatekeeper may very well be an opinion leader and vice versals. This was supported empirically by the AID/MSU Project in Brazilla. The area of gatekeeping has been most attractive to those researchers who are interested in studying mass media institutions. They have invested much time and effort in their studies but their achievements are relatively few in terms of the knowledge gained about gatekeepers' behavior and the influence they exert upon the institutional policy- making processes. ll Summary An opinion leader is defined as the person who seeks to influence other persons by providing information, opinion, or advice. He is also the person who is sought by others who are looking for information, Opinion, or advice. Therefore, an Opinion leader is both an active and passive person. He is active when he seeks to influence other persons and he is passive when other persons seek his information, Opinion, or advice. Both qualities are being utilized in identifying Opinion leaders and in measuring Opinion leadership. The idea of Opinion leaders being influentials is stressed in the literature dealing with Opinion leadership. Opinion leaders are influentials when they seek others and when they are sought by others. Three methods are often utilized for identifying Opinion leaders: (I) the sociometric method, (2) the self—designated Opinion leader method, and (3) the key informants method. Each method has its advantages and disadvantages. It is believed that using all three methods may lead to more reliable results as was suggested by Rogers and Cartano7- There are several concepts which seem to be related to opinion leadership. They all add to our understanding of Opinion leadership and may facilitate its measurement. Such concepts include: (1) con— centration of Opinion leadership, (2) homOphily-heterOphily, (3) mono— morphism-polymorphism, and (u) gatekeeping. CHAPTER III OPINION LEADERSHIP RECONCEPTUALIZED The objective of this chapter is to reconceptualize Opinion leadership as an influence process. In order to achieve this goal we will investigate the nature and implications of two terms: influence and process. The idea that an Opinion leader is an active person in seeking to influence others will be emphasized rather than looking at him as a passive person who is often sought by others. The frame of reference throughout the discussion will be mainly a communication point of view. Katz and his associates8 in their conceptualization of Opinion leadership stressed two notions: group interaction and personal influence. Opinion leaders, in their view, when they transmit information to other members of their primary groups, do so in a way that is likely to affect the member's decisions. This is exactly what we mean when we say that Opinion leadership involves influence. Personal influence, defined as a communication involving a direct face-to-face exchange between the communicator and the receiver which results in changed behavior or attitudes on the part of the receiver5, was first documented by scientific investigation in the IQMO Presidential election study by Lazarsfeld and othersl7, Personal influence was also found to be important throughout the diffusion process and especially so at the evaluation stage when the individual mentally applies the innovation to his present and anticipated future situation. Information and advice are especially likely to be sought from opinion 12 l3 leaders at this point of the diffusion process. Moving to the term "process", we find it more complicated. Millerl8 refers to the term ”process”, in its broadest sense, as a way of perceiving and responding to the world in which we live. The “process" view places emphasis on continuous change. As Berlo asserts, acceptance of a process viewpdht implies that ”we view events and relationships as dynamic, on-going, ever—changing, continuous....“lg. It denies the possibility of viewing events, objects, or acts as static entities that are fixed in time and space. It also stresses the impossibility of capturing a process in its entirity. When we say that Opinion leadership is a process, we are, in a sense, claiming ”process knowledge” of the variables and elements involved. This may not be true because ”process knowledge” is very difficult to attain. Despite this discouraging reality we ought, at least, to familiarize ourselves with what ”process knowledge” really means and implies. The acquisition of process knowledge, according to Millerl8, requires: 1. Closure of the system we are studying. When we say a system is "closed”, this implies that its boundaries are known and that it is possible to prevent the intrusion of other relevant variables into the system. 2. Knowledge of the complete set of relevant variables that interact and determine the phenomenon. 3. Not only must it be possible to stipulate all relevant variables, but the laws pertaining to these variables must also be known. lu Certainly this is not the case with the present state of knowledge of Opinion leadership. We may claim that we have taken some encouraging steps toward understanding Opinion leadership, but not as a process. In order to gain more knowledge of Opinion leadership as a process, we will break it down into stages for conceptual purposes. To achieve a mean- ingful breakdown of the process of Opinion leadership, we ought to follow it through in order to see how it begins, how it proceeds, and how it ends, if it has an end at all. We may assume, for conceptual purposes, that the process of Opinion leadership is initiated by a person who is perceived and accepted by others as having a set of personality and behavioral attributes that are characteristic of Opinion leaders. We will consider this person as a potential Opinion leader. In order for a potential opinion leader to act and behave like an Opinion leader (by trying to influence others), he must be sufficiently motivated and must perceive the situation as favorable. When he makes his first influence attempt, his group or his audience may or may not react favorably. Their reaction will be a kind of feedback which will motivate the potential Opinion leader to continue his attempts, modify his approach, or drOp the whole idea of becoming an Opinion leader entirely. Based upon this over—simplified conception of the process of Opinion leadership, the process may be brOken down into four stages. Each stage will be conceptually distinguishable from the others in terms of the variables and components that determine its nature and outcomes. 15 Four Conceptual Stages of the Process of Opinion Leadership First Stage: Qualification The first stage in the process of Opinion leadership is conceptually the initial step. It deals with the elements and conditions which are necessary for the initiation of the process. These conditions may be called antecedent conditions. They include primarily the personality attribures and behavioral characteristics of the person which are regarded by others as necessary qualifications for Opinion leadership. Second Stage: Motivational-Perceptual A potential opinion leader may move from the first to the second stage in the process of Opinion leadership depending upon two conditions. First, a potential opinion leader should be sufficiently motivated to initiate an opinion leadership influence attempt. Secondly, the audience ought to be able to perceive him as having the personalty attributes and behavioral characteristics of an Opinion leader. Their perceptions have to be translated and transmitted in some way to the potential opinion leader. This idea is similar to Cooley's notion of looking-glass self20. Depending upon his ability to perceive what his audience has transmitted, the potential opinion leader will either be encouraged or discouraged to initiate an influence attempt. The outcome of the second stage in the process of opinion leadership will be determined by the potential Opinion leader's own motivations to act as an Opinion leader and by the way he and his audience will perceive each other. Third Stage: Situational Influences The third stage in the process of Opinion leadership is difficult to fully differentiate from the second stage. It deals with those 16 elements and variables in a given situation which will affect the potenlial Opinion leader's decision to act, or not to act, as an Opinion leader. Two aspects need to be emphasized with respect to the third stage. One is the fact that there are certain elements of the situation which are needed before a leader-follower relationship will appear at all; the second aspect is that particular elements of the situation, like the kind of audience and the type of subject matter, will determine which of the personality attributes of the leader will confer leadership on him and lead him to act like a leader. Fourth Stage: Reinforcement The fourth stage in the process of opinion leadership is concerned with the effects or the outcomes of the Opinion leadership attempt. Such effects, as we have indicated, may or may not be favorable to the potential Opinion leader. If they are favorable, he may repeat his attempt as a result of the reinforcement he gets and will probably seek to establish himself as thg_opinion leader in his system. On the other hand, if his influence attempt induced unfavorable effects the potential Opinion leader may modify his strategy or he may abandon the whole idea of becoming an Opinion leader. The fourth stage also involves feedback which the potential Opinion leader may get from his audience in reaction to his influence attempt. It is important at this point to look at the outcomes and feedback as separate because they are not necessarily the same. To make this point clear, suppose, for example, that an Opinion leader transmitted an idea to his audience. This idea looked very strange to them. They, therefore, did not react to it in a meaningful way. The potential Opinion leader 17 will obtain a kind of mixed feedback or he may get no feedback at all. Later on, the idea which looked strange to the audience may prove to be a useful one. It is likely, then, that they may adopt it. Here, the real outcome will be different from the initial feedback. A Paradigm of Stages in the Process of Opinion Leadership To facilitate the understanding of the four conceptual stages in the process of opinion leadership we present the paradigm shown in Figure 1. Summary Opinion leadership is looked at as an ”influence process". The meaning and implications of both concepts, influence and process, have been pointed out in this chapter. To achieve a clearer understanding of Opinion leadership as an influence process, it was suggested that it may be broken down into four conceptual stages: (1) the qualification for Opinion leadership stage, (2) the motivational-perceptual stage, (3) the situational influences stage, and (u) the reinforcement stage. The first conceptual stage in the process of Opinion leadership deals with the elements and conditions which are necessary for the initiation of the process. This would include the personality attributes and behavioral characteristics of individuals who are potential opinbn leaders. The second stage deals with the potential Opinion leader's motivations to act as an opinion leader and with the audience perception of the potential opinion leader himself. The motivational and perceptual factors will determine whether or not the potential Opinion leader will engage in an influence attempt. 18 mfiampmwmoa GOHCflmo Mo mmmoopm mcp ca mommvm mo Emflvmmmm .H opnmfim Heapmmonomuamoowpm>wpoz zmmmpm ecoomm: 1 11111111111111111111 J . .mwnmnoomoq cowcflmo mom COMPOOHMHHOOO pcmEoopowcfiom :Ommvm cannon: fl 1111111111111111111 4 . . OOOOOHMOH Hmcowpmdpwm :mmmpm whose: w _ mmpovmoq coficHQOH pommmm Odompo>mm OOOOOHMOH pommmm oz AI1I111 3 powwmm manmpo>mmc2 \\\\\\\\ pmempp< OOQOOHWOH 0P beampp< oz 1N zmmmpm pmkah: w-------u--u-----u-m whoommq 111, cowowmo Hampampom OOpm>Hvoz whoomoq whopmmq nowcwmo mamspfi>fiocH cowcwmo Hmwucovom amapOOpom mo OOHO>HHOE¢D Hoom monomoqucoz 19 The third stage in the process of opinion leadership deals with those elements in a situation which will affect the potential Opinion leader's decision to act, or not to act, as an opinion leader. This stage cannot be fully differentiated from the previous stage. The fourth and last conceptual stage deals with the outcomes of the influence attempt which will tend to reinforce the potential Opinion leader's tendency to become an Opinion leader. It seeks to identify the various types of influence effects which are likely to affect the potential Opinion leader's future behavior. CHAPTER IV RELEVANT VARIABLES AND RESEARCH FINDINGS This chapter will follow the same line of thinking as expressed by the four conceptual stages of the process of opinion leadership in Chapter III. The Four Stages Reconsidered Each stage will be considered separately in an effort to identify the most relevant variables Operating at each stage. Research findings pertaining to each of the four stages will be synthesized. More precisely, we will address ourselves to answering four sets of questions which seem most relevant to each of the four conceptual stages. The questions are suggestive in nature and may be grouped as follows: I. First Stage: Qualification 1. What characterizes a potential Opinion leader? 2. What are his personality attributes? 3. What are his social and behavioral characteristics? u. What is his communication behavior? II. Second Stage: Motivational-Perceptual 1. How does the audience perceive the attributes and characteristics of the potential Opinion leader? 2. How do they interpret them? 3. How does the potential opinion leader perceive his audience? u. How does he react to his perception? 2O 21 5. What motivates the potential Opinion leader to attempt to influence others? III. Third Stage: Situational Influences 1. What factors in the situation will tend to encourage a potential Opinion leader to attempt to influence others? 2. What elements in a situation will determine which of the personality attributes and behavioral characteristics will enhance the potential leader's role and which will not? IV. Fourth Stage: Reinforcement I. What variables are likely to lead to a successful influence attempt? 2. How does the audience react to the influence attempt and why? 3. What are the factors or variables that will tend to reinforce the tendency for a person to assume the role of an opinion leader? Research Findings and Relevant Variables First Stage: Qualification for Opinion Leadership All the variables which have relevance to the process of opinion leadership at this point may be classified as antecedent conditions. They are necessary but not sufficient conditions for the initiation of the process. Most of the studies dealing with Opinion leadership, directly or indirectly, are concerned with the identification of Opinion leaders and with determining their characteristics. A great number of 22 these studies have been reviewed, coded, and entered in IBM cards by the research staff of the Diffusion Documents Center of the Department of Communication at Michigan State University. Over 800 studies dealing with the diffusion of innovations and new ideas were coded by the DDC staff by January, 1967. Seventy of these studies have something to do with Opinion leadership. From this rich pool of research findings, we have been able to identify the following correlates of opinion leadership, classified under six major headings: Personal Characteristics of Opinion Leaders 1. Age The relationship between age and Opinion leadership is not definite. Rogers (1962, 1964) and Inayatullah (1964) found a negative relationship between age and Opinion leadership. Lionberger (1953), Welikala (1959), Rahudkar (1960), Camero (1960), and Oliver (1964) found no relation while Barnabas (1958) and Rahim (1965) found a positive relationship between Opinion leadership and age. Lionberger (1962) found a curvilinear relationship between age and opinion leadership. These contradictory findings certainly eliminate age as a consistent correlate of opinion leadership. Further investigation and control over other intervening variables are needed in order to establish a meaninfgul relationship between Opinion leadership and age. For example, Rogers and van 3321 indicated that only in modern societies were Opinion leaders younger than their followers. It is quite possible that age may have relevance to opinion leadership in some settings but not so in others. For example, one would eXpect to find old age to be positively related to Opinion leader— 23 ship in an area like public affairs but not the same with respect to areas like fashion and moviesS. The same may be said about old age and opinion leadership in traditional societies as contrasted to modern societies. 2. Educational level Educational level is measured in terms of the number of years spent in school. Education defined in this way was found to be positively related to Opinion leadership by Welikala (1958), Rahudkar (1960), Rogers (1961), Oliver (196%), and Booth (1966). Lionberger (1953) and van Es (196u) reported no relation at all between the two variables, while Rahim (1965) found a negative relationship. Although it is conceivable to assume that Opinion leadership and education are positively correlated, we are not yet able to establish that relationship in a definite manner. There are several reasons forflme conflicting findings. One such reason could simply be the different methods used by researchers in measuring both Opinion leader- ship and level of education. Another reason could be the kind of topics investigated. 3. Social Status Social status is defined as the position one occupies in the social hierarchy. It is often determined and measured in terms of such indicators as income, occupational prestige, level of living, etc. Several studies support the general expectation that social status is positively related to Opinion leadership. Such studies include those of Lionberger (1953), Barnabas (1957), Fliegel (1957), Rogers (1958 and 1962), Rahudkar (1960), Camero (1960), Jones (196u), Campbell (1965), and Carlson (1965). Troldahl3 also found a positive relationship 24 between Opinion leadership and social status. A negative relationship was found by Rogers (1964) and Rahim (1965), while Larsen (1958) and Welikala (1959) found no relationship at all. The weight of support is, however, in favor of a positive relationship between social status and Opinion leadership. Knowledgeability Knowledgeability refers to how well informed an individual is about a bpic. A person may be rated high or low on a knowledgeability scale depending upon the amount of information he has in comparison to other persons in his system. Knowledgeability is one of the attributes often associated with Opinion leadership. Camero (1960), Sepulveda (1964), and Leuthold (1965) found knowledgeability to be positively related to opinion leadership. Ross (1955) and Troldahl (1965) found no such relation. No studies, however, found a negative relationship between Opinion leadership and knowledgeability. Attitudes Toward Change Dodd, (1952), Ross (1955), Rogers (1961), and Lin (1966) found attitude toward change to be positively related to Opinion leadership. Lionberger (1962), however, found norelation. Relationship_to Social System The relationship of an individual to his social system is determined in several ways. If a person's orientation is external to his social system we call him a cosmopolite. On the other hand, if his orientation is mahly within the social system, we call him a 25 localite. Another way is to measure the individual's participation in formal and informal groups within the social system. Another measure is tfmxhdividual's compliance to or deviancy from the norms of the social system. Rogers (1961), van Es (1963), Sepulveda (1964), and Rahim (1965) found Opinion leadership to be positively related to cosmOpoliteness. Rogers (1958) and Rahudkar (1960) found that membership in formal organi- zations is positively related to opinion leadership. Coleman (1955) found that Opinion leaders tend to deviate from the norms of the social system. Littun (1959), however, found such relationship a curvilinear one, indicating perhaps the influence of extraneous variables. Rogers 21 and van Es indicated that, only in modern communities, Opinion leaders made more trips to urban centers. Communication Behavior Communication behavior in the present context refers to the opinion leader's sources of information, his prefered communication channels, and the degree of his eXpssure to mass media and to interpersonal communication. Sources of information, from the communication point of view, may be classified along many dimensions. Personal-impersonal sources constitute one such dimension, localite-cosmopolite sources constitute a second dimension, and lay-professional sources constitute a third dimension. Communicationcfiannels may be basically classified as mass media or interpersonal channels. Mass media channels, in turn, may include radio, television, newspapers, magazines, professional publications, 26 extension service bulletins, etc. Opinion leadership was found to be positively related to the degree of exposure to general mass media by Rogers (1958), Deutschmann (1962), Troldahl3, and Rahim (1965). A similar relationship was also found between Opinion leadership and the degree of exposure to interpersonal sources by Ross (1955) and Rogers (1962). Opinion leaders were found to have more frequent contacts with extension service agencies and professional sources than their followers by Emery (1954), Rogers (1958 and 1960), van den Ban (1961), and van Es (1965). Opinion leaders were also found to have a higher degree of eXposure to cosmopolite sources by Menzel (1955). Research evidence generally seems to support the idea that Opinion leaders differ from their followers in terms of their communication behavior. They tend to eXpose themselves more to mass media. They also have more frequent contacts with change agencies and tend to expose themselves more to professional sources than their followers. These are perhaps the most defensible conclusions one may draw at this stage of research SOphistication. It is important to recognize the fact that there are still some conflicting research findings, especially with respect to the relationship between exposure to mass media and opinion leadership. This may be due to the fact that many researchers follow different techniques in measuring eXposure to mass media. For example, some researchers prefer to measure mass media exposure in terms of the number of media used while some others measure it in terns of the time spent in exposure to the several media. Still others prefer to measure mass media exposure in terms of the 27 change it induces in the individual's levei of comprehension. This variety of ways of Operationalizing and measuring eXposure to mass media may lead to discrepant results. Innovativeness Innovativeness is defined as the degree to which an individual is relatively earlier in adopting new ideas than other members of his social system. Innovativeness was found to be positively related to Opinion leadership by Chapparo (1955), Coleman (1957), Leuthold (1960), and Carlson (1965). Ryan (19501 Menzel (1963), and Booth (1966) found no relation. Innovativeness may also be measured in terms of the adoption of new ideas. Several studies support the expectation that opinion leaders tend to adOpt new ideas more than non-leaders. Katz (1956 and 1961), Leuthold (1960; Wilkening (1962), Sheppard (1963), Jones (1964), Inayatullah (196M), and Grain (1966) found a positive relationship between Opinion leadership and adOption of new ideas. We ought to note, however, that noneof these studies indicated nor claimed that opinion leaders are necessarily innovators. Table 1 is a summary of the correlates of opinion leadership as coded by the research staff of the Diffusion Documents Center. We draw the following conclusions from the data in Table l. 1. There is no definite relationship between age, a personal charactenstic, and opinion leadership. 2. Education seems to be well documented as a correlate of Opinion leadership. Six out of nine studies coded showed a positive relationshp between Opinion leadership and level of education while 28 Table 1. Summary of Correlates of Opinion Leadership Number of Findings Indicating: Correlates [Negative No Positive Curvilinean Relation Relation Relation Relation I. Personal Characteristics A. Age 4 3 2 B. Education 1 2 6 C. Social Status: 1. General 2 l 6 2. Occupational Prestige 1 2 3. Level of Living 1 . l 4. Income 1 2 l 5. Ownership of Land 2 II. Knowledgeability A. Knowledgeability (General) 1 3 B. Knowledge of Innovation 1 1 III. Attitudes A. Attitude Toward Change (General) 1 B. Attitude Toward Innova- tions ” IV. Relationship to Social System A. Cosmopolite l 3 B. Deviancy l C. Group Participation 1 1 D. Formal Organization Membership 2 l 29 Table 1. Summary of Correlates of Opinion Leadership, Cont. Number of Findings Indicating; Correlates Negative No Positive Curvilinear Relation Relation Relation Relation E. Formal Organization Leadership 2 F. Informal Group Participation 2 G. Sociometric Opinion Leadership 2 l H. Length of Time Resid- ing in Social System 1 V. Innovativeness A. AdOption of New Ideas 1 5 25 B. Early AdOption of New Ideas 3 13 VI. Communication Behavior A. Degree of exposure to interpersonal sources 2 B. Degree of eXposure to impersonal sources 1 C. Degree of exposure to Information service 1 D. Exposure to mass media in general 1 u l E. Contacts with profes— sional sources 1 3 F. Degree of exposure to CosmOpolite sources 2 G. Degree of contact with extension services 5 30 only one study showed a negative relationship. 3. The Weight of support seems to favor high social status as ,/ a correlate of opinion leadership. Thirteen research findings out of twenty show that social status measured in different ways is positively related to Opinion leadership. Only three findings show a negative relationship. 4. Research findings support the importance of favorable attitudes toward change as correlate of Opinion leadership. Four out of five studies coded show a positive relationship between attitude toward change and opinion leadership, while the fifth study show no relation. 5. Opinion leaders seem to be different from their followers with respect to their relationship to their social system. They are more cosmopolite than their followers. They tend to have more participation in formal and informal groups. They do more completely / comply with the system norms than their followers. 6. Opinion leaders are certainly more innovative than their followers. This is indicated by the fact that 38 findings out of 47 show a positive relationship between Opinion leadership and innovativeness. 7. Opinion leaders tend to eXpose themselves more to mass media than do their followers. They also tend to have more frequent contacts with change agencies and professional sources. 21 Rogers and van ES provided three generalizations about Opinion leaders: 1. Opinion leaders deviate less from group norms than the / average group member. They constitute an embodiment of the social 31 and cultural values of the social system of which they are a part. 2. There is a little overlap among the different types of Opinion leaders. An opinion leader in politics may not necessarily be an Opinion leader in fashion. This generalization is supported by the findings of Merton, Katz and Lazarsfeld, Emery and Oeser, and Ryans. Bauer and Marcusl3, however, reanalyzed the data used by Katz and Lazarsfeld and found that an opinion leader could very well be a leader in more than one area. 3. Opinion leaders differ from their followers in information sources, cosmOpoliteness, social participation, social status, and innovativenesss, Second Stage: The Motivational-Perceptual The second perceptual stage prOposed for understanding the dynamics of Opinion leadership as a process is concerned with the perceptual and motivational aspects in the process. It is not sufficient only to possess the attributes and characteristics of an opinion leader in order to be an Opinion leader. A person has to be motivated before he can decide to behave as an Opinion leader. In addition, his group or audience must perceive his attributes and characteristics favorably in order for the potential opinion leader to be encouraged to initiate Ins influence attempt. Although the second stage will determine whether or not later stages in the process of opinion leadership will occur, it has been relatively less attractive to the researchers in the field of communi- cation. It is believed that we can gain much if we invest some of our 32 effort in understanding and identifying at least the most relevant motivational and perceptual variables involved in the process of Opinion leadership. It is equally believed that the lack of knowledge of such variables could be a major factor behind the conflicting findings which we have already indicated in our discussion of the first stage. Also, our inability to predict opinion leadership precisely may be partly due to our failure to include the motivational and perceptual elements in our prediction formulas. The undisclosed nature of the second stage in the process of Opinion leadership ought not to hinder us from at least suggesting some of the variables which will tend to determine, separately or in interaction, the actual dynamics and outcomes of this stage. To achieve this goal, we need to address ourselves to answering two questions. First, what are the variables that tend to motivate a potential Opinion leader to initiate an opinion leader influence attempt? Secondly, why does an audience perceive or fail to perceive a potential opinion leader as such and, thus, will decide whether or not he will be accepted as an Opinion leader? There are several factors that may motivate a potential opinion leader. The following four factors are perhaps among the most significant. 1. Need for Personal Security The concept of security is one of the basic concepts in personality develOpment and psychoanalytic theories. Not too many researchers outside the fields of psychology and psychoanalysis have investigated the need for security even from the social and environmental point of view. 33 A potential Opinion leader is often aware of his possession of some kind of superior attributes relative to other persons in his ‘ group or environment. It is our belief that dispite this awareness on the part of a potential Opinion leader he still needs some assurance of his superiority in order to add to his feeling of personal security. One way to achieve more security is to try to check how other persons react to his views and Opinions. This implies the hypothesis that the more the need for personal security a_potential opinion leader has, the more he will be motivated to attempt to influence others in his group or in his immediate environment. 2. Need for Personal Fulfillment A potential Opinion leader who is aware of his superior talents often engages in efforts to influence others. In so doing he will be partly motivated by the need to test his talents in order to add to his feeling of self fulfillment. McClelland uses the ”need for power" to express almost the same idea. Uleman uses ”the need for influence” which he was able to assess through a content analysis of thematic apperception test22, Successful influence attempts will certainly lead to a more powerful ego and will motivate the potential Opinion leader to more and more attempts in the future. The ideal opinion leader is expected, however, to be able to learn from his failure attempts and frustrations as well as from his sussessful ones. 3. Status—seeking Opinion leadership is an influence process. Influence is always associated with "power”. Power, in its broadest meaning, is correlated 311 with higher status insofar as one's status is socially determined. In this way, opinion leadership is usually found in association with high status. This association, however, does not imply a causal relationship between opinion leadership and social stans. No one is able yet to tell whether opinion leadership leads to higher status or vise versa. Perhaps it is more realistic to assume that they are interdependent in the sense that an increase in one leads to an increase in the other. This seems to be the most defensible kind of relationship between opinion leadership and social status at the present time. Individuals differ in the amount of energy they devote to status- seeking. It is believed that status—seeking to many individuals is perhaps a powerful motivation and is able to explain a great deal of their behavior. Change agencies recognize all these facts and many of them select those opinion leaders who are believed to be highly status- oriented as demonstrators of the new ideas and practices. This strategy was found to have two major effects; it enhances the status of the opinion leaders and facilitates the diffusion and adOption of the new practices. Status-seeking may be one of the motives, a complex one, which ought not be ignored in our effort to understand Opinion leaders and the process of Opinion leadership. The following hypothesis may be offered for testing. The more status-oriented an opinion leader is, the more likely he will be motivated:to initiate an opinion influence attempt. a. Group Expectations Too often, potential opinion leaders are motivated to act as opinion leaders by outside pressures imposed upon them by their groups. The recognition by one's group members of one's superior attributes and 35 capability to lead pressures the potential Opinion leader to actively engage himself in performing his role as an Opinion leader. It is very unlikely that a potential opinion leader who is aware of his superiority and Special talents will be able to resist the temptation of his group expectations. Therefore, we may look at the group expectations under these circumstances asaimotive falling outside the Opinion leader's self boundaries. This implies the following tentative hypothesis: The higher the group's expectations held upon a potential opinion leader the more likely he will be motivated to assume the role of an opinion leader. We ought to remember that the possession of the attributes of an Opinion leader together with an adequate degree of motivation to act as an opinion leader may be considered, at most, as necessary conditions for being an Opinion leader. The assumption of the role of an Opinion leader is, however, a different dimension. It depends of course on the acceptance by the audience of the potential opinion leader. This acceptance generates a set of expectations on the part of the audience or group members which constitute what we call the ”role” of an opinion leader. Some of the variables which may determine the acceptance of a potential Opinion leader by his audience include: 1. The Opinion leader's competence and eXpertise as perceived by his audience. The degree to which an Opinion leader is viewed by his audience as competent or expert with respect to the specific context of ideas will influence his chances of being accepted as an Opinion leader. Katz 36 and Lazarsfeld8 in Decatur study found that opinion leaders were generally regarded as more competent by their groups. Lippitt and others23 reported in the boys' summer camp study that those who were rated as most influential were also known to be more skillful in camp crafts and sports. This implies the hypothesis that: The more competent and expert / the potential opinion leader is perceived by his audience, the more his chances will be of being nominated and accepted as an opinion leader. 2. The degree to which the group members view themselves as lacking competence or eXpertness in the relevant context of ideas. It is conceivably logical that if all members of a group see themselves equally informed and competent, the chancesibr an emerging Opinion leader will be limited. If, however, it perceives itself as lacking in competence relative to an Opinion leader they very likely will initiate a relationship with him and seek his advice or Opinion, thus, accepting him as an Opinion leader. We may hypothesize that: The less compotent and expert the group members perceive themselves / in relation to a potential Opinion leader the more likely they will seek his Opinion and ask for his advice. 3. The degree to which the context of ideas is regarded as important by the audience. One may hypothesize that: In a situation where the issue being discussed is important to all or most of the audience there will be greater pressure to communicate and higher probability for a potential opinion leader to be accepted as an opinion leader. u. The degree to which the audience has access to the same sources of information as the potential opinion leader. 37 In any given situation where a single person has the advantage of having greater access than the rest of his group or audience to some sources of information his chances of impressing them will be greater and his acceptance as an Opinion leader will be more than likely. The following hypothesis may be offered for empirical testing: I23 more the group_members' access to the same sources of a potential opinion leader the less likely they will be in a position to ask for his advice or Opinion. 5. The position which the potential Opinion leader holds in his _group is likely to affect whether or not he will be perceived and accepted as an Opinion leader in his group. Leavitt24 found that one's position in the group affected the chances of becoming a leader of the group and the extent to which One contributed to the group's functional organization. There are of course several positions a group member may hold in his group; a leader, a follower, a spokesman, a gatekeeper, a liaison, a marginal, etc. The extent to which an individual influences others in his group may be looked at as a function of his position on the group. This implies the hypothesis that: Group members are generally more likely to accept the opinion leader- ship of a member who holds a key position in the group than if he is holding a marginal position. 6. The degree to which the potential Opinion leader has status, prestige, authority, control over resources, or anything that is highly valued by his group or audience is likely to affect his image and his chances of being nominated and accepted as an opinion leader. In closing this section, it is important to notice that the strength of the motivational factors alone does not automatically lead 38 to efficient Opinion leadership, nor does the perceptions of the audience. The two sets of factors, the motivational and perceptual, are in direct interaction and they, together, will determine with other situational factors the outcomes of the influence attempt made by the potential Opinion leader. Third Stage: Situational Influence The third conceptual stage in the process of Opinion leadership deals with the situational determinants of Opinion leadership. This stage, as was stated earlier, is not very well differentiated from the second stage. As a matter of fact, the group or audience which the Extential ofinion leader tries to influence is part of the situation and the variables that tend to affect the audience perception and acceptance of the Opinion leader are mostly situational variables. At this point we perhaps need to emphasize the necessity to differentiate two aspects of a situation. First, we need to identify those elements of a situation which are needed before a leader-follower relationship will occur. Secondly, we ought to know which of the attributes of the Opinion leader will be brought into the situation by which elements of that situation. The situational aspects in the process of Opinion leadership are perhaps the most overlooked by communication researchers. This may be due to their complexity which is partly caused by the huge number of variables in a given situation and partly by the fact that these variables interact with each other and, thus, complicate the whole picture. . ' ,- haw. -. 39 The situational approach to leadership, generally, assumes that the kind of leader will emerge out of the situation. In one situation, a person X is a leader. In another, he is not. This implies that leadership is not an attribute of the leader's personality alone nor is it achievable by his talents separately. Bass et a125, working among sorority women, found that successful leadership behavior of an individual varied as a function of a complex interaction of biographical, personality, and situational factors. Cartwright and Zander26 reported that research conducted under the situational orientation does not attempt to find out certain invariant traits of leadership. This statement ought to encourage us to invest more time and energy in exploring and documenting what we still do not know about the situational elements of leadership in general and of Opinion leadership specifically. The special task types and the expected rewards are certainly among the several situational variables that ought to be studied separately and in interaction with each other if we really intend to know more about how a Specific situation determines one's Opinion leadership. Fourth Stage: Reinforcement The fourth conceptual stage in the process of opinion leadership deals mainly with the outcome of the influence attempt made by the potential Opinion leader and how this outcome will affect his future behavior as well as his group's perception of him. Three questions come to the fore of our discussion in this section. First, what are the possible outcomes of the influence attempt of an Opinion leader? Secondly, what are the variables that will tend to affect the outcome of the influence attempt? Thirdly, what do we do 110 about identifying and measuring the results of the influence attempt? The first two questions are perhaps more relevant to us and, therefore, our effort will be directed to answering them. Any attempt to influence peOple may result in either overt, covert, or both kinds of changes in their original state. By overt change we mean the change in the individual's observable behavior. Covert change, on the other hand, refers to the change which is not directly observable like the change in the individual's attitudes, cognitions, or beliefs. Overt changes and covert changes may or may not accompany each other. This makes the prediction of one from knowing the other a difficult and risky job. Each of the two kinds of change has its implications for both the Opinion leader and for the researchers who are interested in measuring the effects of influence attempts. For the opinion leader, it will certainly be frustrating if he does not observe by himself an immediate overt change in hisaudience. It is unfortunate for most Opinion leaders that the changes they induce in their audience are most often covert rather than overt. This might explain why Opinion leaders often ask and look for cues. If they did not get any kind of feedback they may be discouraged and may abandon the idea of trying to influence any more. For the researchers who are interested in measuring the effects of influence attempts it will be much more complicated to measure covert kinds of change than to measure overt behavioral change. The former type of changes require much more SOphisticated methods and tools of measurement which are still under consideration and are undergoing long processes of validation and refinement. 1+1 The second relevant question to our discussion deals with the variables, or factors, that may affect the outcome of an influence attempt. To make this point clear, let us assume that an opinion leader X transmits a piece of information or preaches a specific idea. When he does that he eXpects that a specific kind of reSponse will come out. Sometimes he elicits the response he eXpects and some other times not. Assuming that this opinion leader has utilized a sound strategy to transmit a sound message, what are the possible factors which might interfere and affect his audience in an unanticipated manner? This is the question to which we ought to address ourselves. The answer to this question lies in the existing Opinions, beliefs, and interests of the group which the Opinion leader tries to influence. PeOple, generally, tend to expose themselves to those ideas and opinions which do not contradict with their own. This tendency is known as "selective exposure". It involves both physical and mental eXposure. Therefore, although a person may be physically present and exposed to a message transmitted by an opinion leader he may be mentally absent and, thus, avoids the message. The inclusion of both kinds of eXposure in our investigations gives more sense to what we mean by selective eXposure. In the event of being physically and mentally eXposed to an idea or Opinion transmitted by an Opinion leader, the audience will still be able to avoid it by selectively perceiving and interpreting them in a way that fits their own existing Opinions and attitudes. This process is known by "Selective perception”. There is still a third process or tendency which seriously affects the outcomes of the Opinion leader's influence attempt. This is known as "selective N2 retention”. Selective retention is the tendency to retain and remember the ideas and opinions which are in accordance with one's own Opinions, beliefs, and attitudes. Several studies have indicated that one or more of these processes have occured in some occasions but not in others. Little, however, is known about the dynamics of the three processes especially over long periods of eXposure. Even in relation to limited exposure, Klapper27 said, "The selective processes appear to function at times imperfectly or not at all, and on some occasions to serve, atypically, to impel Opinion change." It is important for us, therefore, to emphasize the possibility that the three selectivity processes put the opinion leader in a real dilemma. When he initiates his influence attempt he expects a feedback from his audience but, the Operation of the three selectivity processes often frustrates his effort and renders him uncertain even as to whether his messages have been received at all. To break his uncertainty, the opinion leader sometimes asks his audience for a direct and immediate feedback and some other times he is satisfied by any kind of cues. Whether he gets such cues or not is another question which goes beyond the objectives of this thesis. In concluding this section it is important to recognize that the area of "effects” is not as easy as one may eXpect. What we have tried to do is mainly to indicate and suggest a line of thinking which we feel can be of great utility in investigating and understanding the whole process of opinion leadership. 43 Summary Four conceptual stages of Opinion leadership were used to guide the discussion in Chapter IV. A number of research findings and variables which seem to have relevance to each stage were presented. Under the first stage, the qualification for Opinion leadership stage, correlates of Opinion leadership were classified under six major headings: (1) personal characteristics of Opinion leaders, (2) knowledge- ability, (3) attitudes toward change, (4) relationship to social system, (5) communication behavior, and (6) innovativeness. Personal characteristics of Opinion leaders include age, education, and social status. Age is perhaps the weakest correlate of opinion leadership. Its relationship to Opinion leadership is not stable in any manner. Perhaps this is due to the different research settings with different societal norms on age. Educational level is a stronger correlate of Opinion leadership. Only one study Showed the level of education to be negatively related to opinion leadership. As to social status, the weight of support seems to be in favor of a positive relationship between it and opinion leadership. Knowledgeability, measured in terms of how well an individual is informed in a specific area of activity, was found to be positively related to Opinion leadership. Few researchers, however, found no relation between the two variables. Attitudes toward change seem to be a strong correlate of Opinion leadership. It was found to be positively correlated with opinion leader- ship in four different studies by different researchers. Only Lionberger (1962) found no relation between Opinion leadership and attitudes toward 1+4 change. The relationship between opinion leaders and their social systems was found to be different from that of Opinion followers. Opinion leaders were found to be more cosmopolite than their followers. They also participate more in both formal and informal groups. Opinion leaders differ from their followers in their communication behavior. They tend to eXpose themselves more to mass media. They also have more frequent contacts with information and extension services and tend to eXpose themselves more to professional sources than their followers do. Research evidence is in strong support of the idea that Opinion leaders are more innovative than their followers. They adOpt new ideas earlier and in greater frequency than their followers do. None of the studies, however, claim that opinion leaders are necessarily innovators. In the second conceptual stage in the process of Opinion leader- ship, the motivational—perceptual stage, four possible motivations are thought to activate the potential Opinion leaders to act as opinion leaders. These motivations are: (l) the need for personal security, (2) the need for personal fulfillment, (3) status-seeking, and (4) group expectations. Six factors seem to influence an audience perceptions of a potential Opinion leader and, thus, will determine whether or not he will be accepted as an opinion leader. The factors are: (l) the Opinion leader's competence and eXpertise as perceived by his audience, (2) the degree to which the audience view themselves as lacking competence in the relevant context of ideas, (3) the degree to which the context of ideas is regarded as important by the audience, (4) the position which 1+5 the potential opinion leader holds in his group, (5) the degree to which thezndience have access to the same sources of information which the potential opinion leader has, and (6) the degree to which the potential Opinion leader has status, prestige, authority, control over resources, or anything that is highly valued by the audience. It is felt that the motivational-perceptual aspects in the process of opinion leadership are being overlooked by most communication researchers. Our lack of knowledge of the variables which may be Operating in this stage of the process of Opinion leadership is perhaps one of the causes behind the conflicting research findings and our inability to predict opinion leadership precisely. The third conceptual stage in the process deals with the situational determinants of Opinion leadership. It is perhaps the least stage in attracting the attention of communication researchers. To acquaint ourselves with the nature and outcomes of this stage we need to identify those elements of a situation which are needed before a leader-follower relationship will occur. Also, we need to know which of the attributes of the Opinion leader will be brought into the situation by which elements of that situation. The fourth and last conceptual stage in the process of Opinion leadership is the reinforcement stage. It deals with those factors or variables which tend to lead to favorable influence effects and, therefore, reinforce the opinion leadership tendencies in the individual. The possible effects of influence attempts are either overt or covert. Overt effects are observable and easier to measure. The kind of influence effect is likely to affect the opinion leader's future behavior. It 46 also has some implications for the researchers who are interested in effect measurement. Three selectivity processes; selective exposure, selective perception, and selective retention, seem to affect the outcomes of the Opinion leader's influence attempt seriously. The three processes cooperate with each other to increase the Opinion leader's uncertainty as to whether his messages have been received and as to whether or not they have induced the desired goals. It is admitted that more research is still needed in this area before we are able b predict whether or not an Opinion leadereill be effective. CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION The term ”opinion leader” was fist utilized by Lazarsfeld and others in their study of the 1940 Presidential elections and has been widely used and investigated since then. Opinion leaders throughout this thesis are looked at as influentials who influence other persons' decisions by providing information, interpretation, Opinion, or advice. Attempts to identify opinion leaders have taken into consideration the fact that Opinion leaders are both active and passive persons. They are active because they seek to influence others and are passive because they are sought by others. Any attempt to identify opinion leaders that overlooks any of these two qualities of Opinion leaders does not lead to sufficiently reliable results. Three methods are often utilized to identify opinion leaders; the sociometric Opinion leaders method, the key informants method, and the self-designated Opinion leader method. The three methods are eXpected to complement and validate each other and are often used to— gether to achieve higher reliability. Opinion leadership_is defined as arlinterpersonal influence exercised in a situation through a communication process toward the attainment of certain goals. It is looked at throughout this thesis as an "influence process" and was broken down into four conceptual stages for the purpose of improving our understanding of its dynamics. The four stages are: (l) the qualification for Opinion leadership stage, (2) the motivational—perceptual stage, (3) the situational influences 47 48 stage, and (4)1he reinforcement stage. Content analysis of over seventy studies dealing with Opinion leadership directly and indirectly has indicated that almost all the research done in the area of Opinion leadershnpdid not go beyond the eXploration and investigation of the characteristics and attributes of Opinion leaders. This means that only the first conceptual stage in the process of Opinion leadership is fairly well documented. The motivational, perceptual, and situational aspects in the process of opinion leadership have been widely ignored or over- looked by researchers. It is believed that our understanding of opinion leadership and our predictions of Opinion leaders will not become adequate before we invest more of our time and effort in exploring the nature and dynamics of the second, third, and fourth conceptual stages of the process of opinion leadership. Knowing the nature and components of the first stage alone is a necessary step but not sufficient for under- standing Opinion leadership as a process. This knowledge has to be supplemented by at least equal knowledge of the nature and dynamics of the other stages. There are several characteristics which are often found in association with Opinion leadership. They are, in a sense, correlates of Opinionlbadership. Correlates of opinion leadership were found to include education, social status, innovativeness, cosmopoliteness, and Special patterns of communication behavior. Even with respect to these correlates there are several studies that have led to contradictory findings. Therefore, it may be wiser to handle such correlates with caution. Certainly there are reasons for these contradictory findings. In any research dealing with human behavior, there is always a chance for outside elements to interfere with the normal Operation of L19 the variables which we are testing. These outside elements are often known as extraneous variables. They are, in a sense, unwanted variables but they do interfere and affect our results. It is quite possible, then, that previous studies were affected by such extraneous variables. What we need, therefore, is to improve our controls over research settings in order to achieve more valid results. The lack of controls, then, could be one reason behind the contradictory research findings. By control we mean both the direct and statistical kinds of control. We ought to select the control method which does not reduce our ability to draw sound generalizations. A second reason could be the diversity of ways which are being utilized by the different researchers in Operationalizing and measuring the concepts or variables themselves. For example, social status has been operationalized for measurement purposes in terms of the level of income, the level of education, the level of living, the occupational prestige, etc. All these measures are not equally correlated with what we actually mean by social status. Therefore, it is very likely that our research results have been influenced by such diversity of Operations and measurement techniques. What we need, then, in order to overcome this