Jennifer Silva
COM 492
February 5, 2003
Reflection paper #1
The intersection of mass and interpersonal communication is an exciting juncture for
communication research that can bring new functionality and credibility to the discipline.
Further, acknowledgement of the legitimacy of various foci and the development and use of
theory for study is necessary to an increased understanding of communication in research and
methodology. The crossroads of mass and interpersonal communication provide a meaningful
point for critical thought and a catalyst for impactful research.
In the book “ Shaping political attitudes: The impact of interpersonal communication and
mass media,” Silvo Lenart states, “A review of the major paradigms of communication research
in political science . . . reveals both the absence of dialogue between media and interpersonal
effects research and a basis for theoretical integration” (p. 35). Lenart’s statement is consistent
with other communication scholars (Berger & Chaffee, 1988; Rice & Borgman, 1988; Beniger,
1993; Rogers, 1999) that argue that mass and interpersonal communication exist as poorly
integrated subdisciplines within communication. Further, these scholars argue that little shared
theory and research exists between mass and interpersonal communication, and that the interest
of the discipline rests in future research to this end.
Fortunately, Lenart provides a framework and model for the integration of mass and
interpersonal communication in political communication. Lenart’s information flow model
provides an interesting framework for the co-existence of mass and interpersonal theory and
concepts. The model of information flow suggests that the public can obtain information from
two sources: mass media and interpersonal networks. Thus, both mass and interpersonal outlets
inform voters. The mass media is important source for political communication because most
citizens do not experience political events and affairs firsthand. Likewise, the mass media
informs interpersonal network activity and discussion of political issues. The information flow
model is “a process by which mass media information reaches the public both directly and
through the filter of interpersonal discussion” (p. 36). Lenart merges mass and interpersonal
communication to explain patterns of shared influence, shared effect, and combined interaction.
Lenart’s analysis provides an overview of the integration of mass and interpersonal
paradigms through three levels of influence. First, individual level analysis provides face-to-face
conversation as an outlet for influence. Lenart states, “As a rule, because main discussants tend
to be personal colleagues whose opinions are valued, it should be expected that individual
preferences for candidates are positively correlated with main discussant preferences” (p. 38).
Interpersonal research suggests that an opinion leader may emerge, and that a less
politically-minded individual will adopt the view of the opinion leader in such interaction.
Second, group level analysis is necessary as group cohesiveness implies high correlation
between group membership and influence. Interpersonal theory suggests that highly
homogeneous groups (family) will share preference and opinion whereas heterogeneous groups
(coworkers) will not. Third, society level analysis employs spiral of silence theory, placing
interpersonal interaction within the control of the mass media. Thus, majority opinion will
determine articulation of personal viewpoints, resulting in impact on discussion. Lenart states,
“The communication flow, traveling from the media to the interpersonal context, is viewed as an
organic whole that defines and shapes a social climate of opinion, which then produces specific
effects on both personal attitudes and behaviors” (p. 39).
Lenart also reviews the impact of interpersonal and mass communication on patterns of
effect. While research on combined mass and interpersonal effects in political communication is
limited, theory informs the competitive and reinforcing models of effect. The competitive model
“formalizes the relationship between media and interpersonal sources as one of independent
main effects that compete for influence over the individual, and that one will override the other”
(p. 40). Research suggests that interpersonal effects are dominant over mass media effects
because “interpersonal opinion leaders served to dominate media information, thus protecting the
general public from direct media effects” (p. 40). This interaction between interpersonal and
mass communication also suggests that an individuals agenda, grounded in agenda setting
theory, takes greater precedence than the mass media agenda.
The reinforcing model suggests that interpersonal interaction reinforces initial mass
media information. Lenart states that research (Chaffee & Mutz, 1988) demonstrates that “the
more individuals converse about information originally garnered from the media, the greater the
total impact of the media will be” (p. 41). Also, studies show that media provides political
discussion content, and that individuals use media in anticipation of interpersonal interaction. In
fact, research (Becker & Preston, 1969) concludes that individuals who try to persuade others
politically are the highest consumers of media overall. Further, research (Greenberg, 1975)
demonstrates that political conversations contain media references at 76% whereas typical
conversation includes reference at 40%. Most importantly, interpersonal relations regarding
politics allow people an opportunity to express individual opinions, though these opinions can be
impacted by popular opinion, as expressed in the spiral of silence theory, or opinion leaders, as
suggested in interpersonal theory. Overall, the reinforcement model supposes a positive
interaction between mass and interpersonal communication.
Lenart explains the combined effect of interpersonal and mass communication on
political communication and information flow. The media and person-to-person effect suggests
that “media effects, if they exist, are essentially neutralized by the influence of opinion leaders”
(p. 43). Thus, a negative relationship exists between mass and interpersonal communication
because interpersonal interaction overrides the media effect. Media and group influence supposes
that an individual’s exposure within homogeneous and heterogeneous groups is the interpersonal
variable in understanding media effects. In shared homogeneous networks, shared influence will
result. However, in heterogeneous groups, “it is expected that media influences upon the
individual should encounter the cross-pressures and counterarguments inherent within such
groups, so it is expected that greater amounts of discussion with persons other than family should
compete with the media effects” (p. 44). Thus, interpersonal discussion in a varied network is
significant in processing mass media information and effect. Media and opinion climate
influence suggests that local opinion climate is maintained though interpersonal interaction
whereas the national opinion climate is maintained through the mass media. To this end, the
local and national climates may compete, placing interpersonal and mass networks at odds in
influencing opinion. Because spiral of silence theory suggests that individuals will change their
preferences based on perceived popular opinion change, consideration of both the local and
national networks is important.
Overall, Lenart suggests that interpersonal and mass communication merge in providing
an increased understanding of political communication, evolving public policy, and important
social affairs. Certainly, the use of interpersonal theory, including opinion leader, and mass
theory, including spiral of silence, demonstrates shared legitimacy and theoretical basis to
examine both interpersonal and mass communication. Understanding of their shared influence
and effect and combined interaction is significant to political communication with implication
for theory and practice within the communication discipline. Concepts such as the reinforcement
model within the information flow of political communication document a meaningful
intersection to apply both interpersonal and mass communication principles for greater
understanding. Likewise, combined effects suggest that mass and interpersonal networks merge
to influence voters and other participants in the political process. Because of the integration of
these networks, mass and interpersonal become indistinguishable in shared effect within political
communication. As Lenart recommends, further research is vitally necessary for increased
dialogue between interpersonal and mass communication. Further reflections on political
conversation will demonstrate an ongoing interest in the intersection between interpersonal and
mass communication.
Beniger, J. R. (1993). Communication - Embrace the subject, not the field. Journal of
Communication, 43(4), 18-25.
Berger, C. R., & Chaffee, S. H. (1988). On bridging the communication gap. Human
Communication Research, 15, 311-318.
Lenart, Silvo. (1994). Shaping political attitudes: The impact of interpersonal communication
and mass media. Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA.
Reardon, K. K., & Rogers, E. M. (1988). Interpersonal versus mass media communication: A
false dichotomy. Human Communication Research, 15, 284-303.
Rogers, E. M. (1999). Anatomy of the two subdisciplines of communication study. Human
Communication Research, 25, 618-631.