People who influence people

The Influentials:

Gabriel Weimann

The Influentials: People Who Influence People by Gabriel Weimann is a classic text on the sociology of influence. It was first published in 1994 and has been translated into many languages. The book examines the concept of opinion leadership and how it has been studied in a variety of fields, including marketing, public opinion, and elections. Weimann argues that opinion leaders are not simply people who have a lot of followers; they are also people who are seen as being credible and trustworthy. They are able to influence others because they are seen as being experts in their field.

The book is divided into four parts:

Part 1: The Birth of the Opinion Leadership Concept
Part 2: The Golden Age of Opinion Leaders: Methods, Typologies, and Characteristics
Part 3: The Spheres of Opinion Leadership
Part 4: The Fight for Survival

In Part 1, Weimann traces the history of the concept of opinion leadership from its early beginnings in the 1940s to its development in the 1970s. He discusses the work of key scholars in the field, such as Paul Lazarsfeld, Elihu Katz, and James Coleman.

In Part 2, Weimann examines the different methods that have been used to study opinion leadership. He also discusses the different types of opinion leaders, such as local opinion leaders, cosmopolitan opinion leaders, and situational opinion leaders.

In Part 3, Weimann examines the different spheres in which opinion leadership operates, such as marketing, public opinion, and elections. He discusses how opinion leaders are used in each of these spheres and the impact that they have.

In Part 4, Weimann discusses the challenges that opinion leadership faces in the modern world. He argues that the rise of new media, such as the Internet and social media, has made it more difficult for traditional opinion leaders to maintain their influence.

The book concludes by discussing the future of opinion leadership. Weimann argues that opinion leadership will continue to be important in the future, but that it will take new forms. He calls for more research on the role of opinion leaders in the digital age.

The Birth of the Opinion Leadership Concept

Early Studies

Weimann discusses several studies that helped establish the concept of opinion leadership in the chapter “The Birth of The Opinion Leadership Concept” in the book The Influentials: People Who Influence People. These studies include:

The Decatur Study (1944)

This study was one of the first to examine the role of opinion leaders in the diffusion of information. The study found that people were more likely to adopt new information if they heard it from someone they knew and trusted, rather than from a stranger or the media.

The Decatur Study was a landmark study in the field of communication research. It was conducted in Decatur, Illinois, in 1944, during the final months of World War II. The study was designed to investigate how information about the war was diffused through the community.

The researchers interviewed a random sample of Decatur residents and asked them about their sources of information about the war. They found that people were more likely to get their information about the war from word-of-mouth than from the mass media. They also found that a small number of people were responsible for disseminating most of the information about the war through the community. These people were called “opinion leaders.”

The Decatur Study was one of the first studies to identify opinion leaders and to document their role in the diffusion of information. The study had a profound impact on the development of communication research and the field of influence research.

Here are some of the key findings of the Decatur Study:

People were more likely to get their information about the war from word-of-mouth than from the mass media.
A small number of people were responsible for disseminating most of the information about the war through the community.
Opinion leaders were more likely to be exposed to information about the war than people who were not opinion leaders.
Opinion leaders were more likely to be involved in discussing the war with others.
Opinion leaders were more likely to be seen as being knowledgeable about the war.

The Decatur Study was a groundbreaking study that helped to establish the concept of opinion leadership and to demonstrate the importance of word-of-mouth communication. The study’s findings have had a profound impact on the development of communication research and the field of influence research.

The Elmira Study (1948)

This study was conducted during the 1948 presidential election in Elmira, New York. The study found that opinion leaders played a significant role in influencing the voting decisions of their friends and neighbors.

The Elmira Study was a landmark study in the field of political communication. It was conducted in Elmira, New York, during the 1948 presidential election. The study was designed to investigate how opinion leaders influenced the voting decisions of their friends and neighbors.

The researchers interviewed a random sample of Elmira residents and asked them about their sources of information about the election, their political attitudes, and their voting intentions. They also asked them to name the people they talked to most often about the election.

The researchers found that opinion leaders were an important source of information and influence for the voters of Elmira. They found that voters were more likely to vote for the candidate that their opinion leader supported. They also found that voters were more likely to be persuaded to change their minds about the election if they were exposed to information from an opinion leader.

The Elmira Study was one of the first studies to demonstrate the significant role that opinion leaders can play in influencing voting behavior. The study’s findings have had a profound impact on the development of political communication research and the field of political science.

Here are some of the key findings of the Elmira Study:

Opinion leaders were an important source of information and influence for the voters of Elmira.
Voters were more likely to vote for the candidate that their opinion leader supported.
Voters were more likely to be persuaded to change their minds about the election if they were exposed to information from an opinion leader.
The effects of opinion leadership were strongest among undecided voters.

The Elmira Study was a groundbreaking study that helped to establish the concept of opinion leadership in the field of political communication. The study’s findings have had a profound impact on the development of political communication research and the field of political science.

The Marienthal Study (1950)

This study was conducted in Marienthal, Austria, after World War II. The study found that opinion leaders were important sources of information and support for the residents of Marienthal.

The Marienthal Study was a landmark study in the field of social psychology. It was conducted in Marienthal, Austria, after World War II. The study was designed to investigate the impact of unemployment on the social and psychological well-being of the residents of Marienthal.

The researchers interviewed a random sample of Marienthal residents and asked them about their experiences of unemployment, their coping mechanisms, and their hopes for the future. They also observed the behavior of the residents in a variety of settings.

The researchers found that opinion leaders played an important role in helping the residents of Marienthal cope with the stress and uncertainty of unemployment. They found that opinion leaders provided information, emotional support, and practical advice to the other residents. They also found that opinion leaders helped to maintain social cohesion and a sense of community in Marienthal.

The Marienthal Study was one of the first studies to demonstrate the importance of opinion leadership in coping with crisis. The study’s findings have had a profound impact on the development of social psychology and the field of disaster relief.

Here are some of the key findings of the Marienthal Study:

Opinion leaders played an important role in helping the residents of Marienthal cope with the stress and uncertainty of unemployment.
Opinion leaders provided information, emotional support, and practical advice to the other residents.
Opinion leaders helped to maintain social cohesion and a sense of community in Marienthal.
Opinion leadership was more effective in helping residents cope with unemployment when it was based on expertise and credibility rather than on popularity or social status.

The Marienthal Study was a groundbreaking study that helped to establish the concept of opinion leadership as a valuable resource for coping with crisis. The study’s findings have had a profound impact on the development of social psychology and the field of disaster relief.

The People’s Choice (1948)

The starting point for the interrrelated ideas of opinion leaders and the two-step flow model is the 1940 voting study, which focused on the process of decision making during an election campaign.

This study was a large-scale survey of voting behavior in the 1944 presidential election. The study found that opinion leaders were more likely to be exposed to information about the election and that they were more likely to vote than people who were not opinion leaders

These studies were seminal in the development of the concept of opinion leadership and the field of influence research. They showed that opinion leaders are important sources of information and influence for others, and that they can play a significant role in shaping public opinion and behavior.

The People’s Choice Study was a landmark study in the field of voting behavior. It was conducted in the United States during the 1944 presidential election. The study was designed to investigate how people made decisions about how to vote.

The researchers interviewed a random sample of voters and asked them about their sources of information about the election, their political attitudes, and their voting intentions. They also asked them about their involvement in discussing the election with others.

The researchers found that opinion leaders played an important role in influencing the voting decisions of their friends and neighbors. They found that voters were more likely to vote for the candidate that their opinion leader supported and more likely to know about their opinion leader’s views than about the candidates’ views.

The People’s Choice Study was one of the first studies to provide evidence for the two-step flow of communication. The two-step flow of communication is a theory that suggests that information first flows from the mass media to opinion leaders and then from opinion leaders to the general public.

Here are some of the key findings of The People’s Choice Study:

Opinion leaders played an important role in influencing the voting decisions of their friends and neighbors.
Voters were more likely to vote for the candidate that their opinion leader supported.
Voters were more likely to know about their opinion leader’s views than about the candidates’ views.
The effects of opinion leadership were strongest among undecided voters.

The findings presented in The People’s Choice, suggest that the flow of
mass communications may be less direct and powerful than was commonly supposed

First revealed: impact of personal influence

Much to their surprise, the researchers found that people who made up their minds during the campaign, or those who changed their opinions druing the campaign, or those who changed teir opinions during the campaign, were more likely to mention personal influence as the main source for their decision. The main sources mentioned were everyday groups, such as family and friends. Moreover, a greater number of people reported participating in personal discussion of lthe election than hearing a campaign speech or reading a newspaper editorial. this

The Rovere Study

The Rovere Study was a landmark study in the field of sociology. It was conducted in Rovere, New Jersey, in 1949. The study was designed to investigate the nature of influence and to identify the different types of opinion leaders.

The researchers interviewed a random sample of Rovere residents and asked them about their sources of information, their political attitudes, and their opinions on a variety of social issues. They also asked them to name the people they talked to most often about these topics.

The researchers found that there were two main types of opinion leaders in Rovere: locals and cosmopolitans. Locals were people who were well-connected to the community and who were seen as being experts on local affairs. Cosmopolitans were people who were well-informed about the outside world and who were seen as being experts on national and international affairs.

The researchers also found that opinion leaders were more likely to be exposed to information than people who were not opinion leaders and that they were more likely to be involved in discussing current events with others.

The Rovere Study was one of the first studies to identify the different types of opinion leaders and to demonstrate the importance of social networks in the diffusion of information. The study’s findings have had a profound impact on the development of sociology and the field of communication research.

Here are some of the key findings of The Rovere Study:

There were two main types of opinion leaders in Rovere: locals and cosmopolitans.
Locals were people who were well-connected to the community and who were seen as being experts on local affairs.
Cosmopolitans were people who were well-informed about the outside world and who were seen as being experts on national and international affairs.
Opinion leaders were more likely to be exposed to information than people who were not opinion leaders.
Opinion leaders were more likely to be involved in discussing current events with others.
The effects of opinion leadership were strongest among undecided individuals.

The Rovere Study was a groundbreaking study that helped to establish the concept of opinion leadership as a valuable source of information and influence. The study’s findings have had a profound impact on the development of sociology, the field of communication research, and political science.

Merton’s main contribution in the rovere study was his development of the first typology of opinion leaders. In fact, he suggested several classificartřions: th distinction between real and potential opinion leaders, the distinction between local and cosmopolitan opinion leaders and the distinction between monomorphous (influential in just one field, for example in the field of fashion) and polymorphous opinion leaders.

The first classification dealt with phases in the cycle of personal influence. Thus, Merton suggested the distinction among the currently influential (occupiying a supposedly stable position), the potentially influential (the rising star-still upward mobile), the waning influential (passed the zenith-now downward mobile), and the dormant influential (possessing the attributes of the influential but not exploiting these for the exercise of influence). The last distinction didn’t enable us to acdount for the diverse behaviors of the influentials.

"The fact remains that propaganda is one of the most powerful instrumentalities in the modern world."

The set of beliefs about the nature and power of modern mass media was never formulated at the time into a systematic model or gtheory but in retrospect it has come to be called the magic bullet theory or other colorful names, such as “hypodermic needle theory” and the “transmission belt theory.” the basic assumptions of these models namely that media messages are received in a uniform way by every member of the audience and that immediate, direct responses are triggered by such stimuli, were completely consistent with general theory in both sociology and psychology as it had been developed up to that time.

It reflected not only the stimulus-response theory, but also the dominant views regarding the social organization of society and the psychological structure of human beings who are exposed and stimmulated by the mass media.

It reflected not only the stimulus-response theory, but also the dominant views regarding the social organization of society and the psychological structure of human being who are exposed and stimulated by the mass media. It was against these theoretical and popular images of society, the mass media and the individual that the early studies on personal influence and mediated flow of mass communication emerged.

Golden Age of Opinion Leaders

The chapter “The Golden Age of Opinion Leaders” in the book The Influentials: People Who Influence People by Gabriel Weimann discusses the period from the 1950s to the 1970s as the golden age of opinion leadership research. This period saw a surge in interest in the concept of opinion leadership and a proliferation of studies that examined its various aspects.

Weimann argues that this period was golden for three main reasons:

First, there was a great deal of theoretical development in the area of opinion leadership research. Scholars began to develop more sophisticated models of opinion leadership and to identify the factors that influenced its effectiveness.
Second, there was a great deal of empirical research conducted on opinion leadership. Weimann cites studies that examined opinion leadership in a variety of settings, including politics, marketing, and fashion.
Third, there was a great deal of methodological innovation in the area of opinion leadership research. Scholars developed new methods for identifying and studying opinion leaders, such as sociometric methods and informant ratings.

Weimann concludes the chapter by arguing that the golden age of opinion leadership research has come to an end. He argues that this is due to a number of factors, including the rise of new media, the decline of traditional forms of social authority, and the increasing complexity of modern society. However, he also argues that opinion leadership remains an important concept and that it is worth continuing to study.

Methods

Sociometric Method

The sociometric method was one of the most popular methods used to identify opinion leaders in the golden age of opinion leadership research. In this method, respondents were asked to name the people they talked to most often about a particular topic. The people who were named most often were then considered to be opinion leaders on that topic.

The sociometric method was a relatively simple and straightforward method to use. However, it was also a method that had some limitations. For example, the sociometric method could only identify opinion leaders who were known to the respondents. Additionally, the sociometric method could be biased by the respondents’ own personal relationships.

Despite its limitations, the sociometric method was a valuable tool for identifying opinion leaders. It was used in a variety of studies and it produced a wealth of data on opinion leadership.

Here are some of the key advantages of the sociometric method:

The sociometric method was a relatively simple and straightforward method to use.
The sociometric method could be used to identify opinion leaders in a variety of settings.
The sociometric method produced a wealth of data on opinion leadership.
The sociometric method allowed for the identification of opinion leaders who were not known to the researchers.

Here are some of the key limitations of the sociometric method:

The sociometric method could only identify opinion leaders who were known to the respondents.
The sociometric method could be biased by the respondents’ own personal relationships.
The sociometric method did not allow for the identification of the factors that influenced opinion leadership.

The sociometric method is a useful method for identifying opinion leaders, but it is important to be aware of its limitations. Researchers should use other methods, such as informant ratings and self-designation, to identify opinion leaders in conjunction with the sociometric method.

The Informants Ratings Method

The Informants Ratings method was another popular method used to identify opinion leaders in the golden age of opinion leadership research. In this method, knowledgeable informants were asked to identify the opinion leaders in a particular group or community. The informants were typically people who were well-acquainted with the group or community and who were familiar with the topic of interest.

The Informants Ratings method was a more sophisticated method than the sociometric method. It allowed for the identification of opinion leaders who were not known to the respondents. Additionally, the Informants Ratings method could be used to identify opinion leaders on a wider range of topics.

However, the Informants Ratings method was also a more time-consuming and expensive method to use. Additionally, the Informants Ratings method could be biased by the informants’ own personal opinions and beliefs.

Despite its limitations, the Informants Ratings method was a valuable tool for identifying opinion leaders. It was used in a variety of studies and it produced a wealth of data on opinion leadership.

Here are some of the key advantages of the Informants Ratings method:

The Informants Ratings method allowed for the identification of opinion leaders who were not known to the respondents.
The Informants Ratings method could be used to identify opinion leaders on a wider range of topics.
The Informants Ratings method allowed for the identification of opinion leaders who were seen as being credible and trustworthy by others.

Here are some of the key limitations of the Informants Ratings method:

The Informants Ratings method was a more time-consuming and expensive method to use.
The Informants Ratings method could be biased by the informants’ own personal opinions and beliefs.
The Informants Ratings method did not allow for the identification of the factors that influenced opinion leadership.

The Informants Ratings method is a useful method for identifying opinion leaders, but it is important to be aware of its limitations. Researchers should use other methods, such as self-designation and network analysis, to identify opinion leaders in conjunction with the Informants Ratings method.

The Self-designation Method

The Self-designation method was a method used to identify opinion leaders by asking individuals to identify themselves as opinion leaders on a particular topic. This method was more subjective than other methods, such as sociometric and informants ratings, as it relied on individuals’ self-perception and willingness to identify themselves as influential.

The Self-designation method had some advantages and disadvantages. Here are some of its key advantages:

It allowed researchers to identify opinion leaders who may not have been identified through other methods, such as individuals who were not well-known within a group or community.
It provided insights into individuals’ self-perception of their influence and their willingness to be seen as leaders.
It was a relatively simple and straightforward method to use.

However, the Self-designation method also had some key limitations:

It was susceptible to bias, as individuals may have overestimated or underestimated their own influence.
It may have missed individuals who were considered influential by others but did not identify themselves as such.
It did not provide a comprehensive understanding of the factors that contributed to an individual’s influence.

Despite its limitations, the Self-designation method was a useful tool for identifying opinion leaders, particularly in conjunction with other methods. It provided a valuable perspective on individuals’ self-perception of their influence and could be used to identify a broader range of opinion leaders than other methods.

Here are some of the ways researchers used the Self-designation method:

Researchers asked individuals to rate themselves on a scale of 1 to 5 in terms of their influence on a particular topic.
Researchers asked individuals to list the people they considered to be opinion leaders on a particular topic and then asked if they would consider themselves to be one of those opinion leaders.
Researchers asked individuals to participate in focus groups or interviews to discuss their perceptions of influence and their willingness to identify themselves as opinion leaders.

The Observation Method

In the chapter “The Observation Method” in the book The Influentials: People Who Influence People, Gabriel Weimann discusses the use of the observation method to identify opinion leaders. The author points out that observation can be a valuable tool for identifying opinion leaders, particularly when combined with other methods such as sociometric ratings and informant ratings.

Here are some of the ways researchers used the Observation Method to identify opinion leaders:

Observing interactions: Researchers observed informal interactions in various settings, such as workplaces, community groups, and social gatherings, to identify individuals who consistently took the lead in discussions, provided information, and shaped the opinions of others.
Analyzing communication patterns: Researchers analyzed communication patterns, such as who initiated conversations, who received the most attention, and whose opinions were most often sought after, to identify individuals who played a central role in information exchange and opinion formation.
Assessing leadership behaviors: Researchers observed and documented behaviors that indicated leadership, such as taking initiative, providing guidance, and resolving conflicts, to identify individuals who were seen as leaders by their peers.

The author also acknowledges limitations of the Observation Method:

Subjectivity: Observation relies on the subjective interpretation of the observer, which can be influenced by their own biases and expectations.
Limited scope: Observation provides a limited view of an individual’s influence, as it can only capture behaviors and interactions within the observed setting.
Time-consuming: Observation can be a time-consuming and labor-intensive method, requiring researchers to spend significant time in the field to gather meaningful data.

Despite these limitations, the Observation Method can provide valuable insights into the dynamics of opinion leadership and the behaviors that contribute to influence. When used in conjunction with other methods, it can help researchers develop a more comprehensive understanding of opinion leadership and its role in various social contexts.

Here are some key points from the chapter:

Observation can be a valuable tool for identifying opinion leaders, particularly when combined with other methods.
Researchers should be aware of the limitations of observation, such as subjectivity, limited scope, and time-consuming nature.
Observation can provide valuable insights into the dynamics of opinion leadership and the behaviors that contribute to influence.

Typologies

Weimann identifies a number of different typologies of opinion leaders, including:

Locals vs. cosmopolitans: Locals are opinion leaders who are well-connected to the community and who are seen as being experts on local affairs. Cosmopolitans are opinion leaders who are well-informed about the outside world and who are seen as being experts on national and international affairs.
Active vs. passive opinion leaders: Active opinion leaders are those who actively seek out information and who are involved in discussions about current events. Passive opinion leaders are those who are more passive and who are more likely to receive information from others than to seek it out themselves.
Opinion leaders vs. key informants: Opinion leaders are those who are seen as being influential by others. Key informants are those who are knowledgeable about a particular topic and who can provide information about it.
Opinion leaders vs. change agents: Opinion leaders are those who are able to influence the opinions and behaviors of others. Change agents are those who are actively working to bring about social change.

Weimann argues that these typologies are useful for understanding the different types of opinion leaders that exist and for identifying the factors that contribute to their influence. He also argues that these typologies can be used to develop more effective strategies for influencing others.

Here are some of the key points from the chapter:

The Spheres of Opinion Leadership

In the chapter “The Spheres of Opinion Leadership” in the book The Influentials: People Who Influence People, Gabriel Weimann examines the various spheres in which opinion leaders exert their influence. He argues that opinion leadership is not limited to any one particular sphere, but rather can be found in a wide range of settings, including politics, marketing, fashion, science, agriculture, and health care.

Weimann discusses the characteristics of opinion leaders in each of these spheres and the factors that contribute to their influence. He also highlights the challenges that opinion leaders face in maintaining their influence in an ever-changing world.

Here is a summary of what Weimann says about the spheres of opinion leadership:

Politics: In politics, opinion leaders are individuals who are seen as being knowledgeable about political affairs and who are able to influence the voting decisions of others. They may be politicians, journalists, or ordinary citizens who are well-respected for their political insights.
Marketing: In marketing, opinion leaders are individuals who are early adopters of new products and services and who are able to influence the purchasing decisions of others. They may be celebrities, bloggers, or ordinary consumers who are considered to be experts in their field.
Fashion: In fashion, opinion leaders are individuals who are seen as having a good sense of style and who are able to influence the fashion choices of others. They may be celebrities, designers, or ordinary consumers who are considered to be trendsetters.
Science: In science, opinion leaders are individuals who are experts in their field and who are able to influence the research agenda and the adoption of new scientific theories. They may be scientists, journalists, or policymakers who are considered to be authorities in their field.
Agriculture: In agriculture, opinion leaders are individuals who are knowledgeable about farming practices and who are able to influence the adoption of new technologies and practices by other farmers. They may be extension agents, agricultural scientists, or experienced farmers.
Health care: In health care, opinion leaders are individuals who are knowledgeable about health issues and who are able to influence the health-related decisions of others. They may be doctors, nurses, or patient advocates.

The Fight for Survival

In the chapter “The Fight for Survival” in the book The Influentials: People Who Influence People, Gabriel Weimann discusses the challenges and threats faced by opinion leaders in an ever-changing world. He argues that opinion leaders must constantly adapt and innovate in order to maintain their influence.

Weimann identifies a number of factors that threaten the survival of opinion leaders, including:

The rise of new media: The rise of new media, such as social media, has made it easier for people to access information from a variety of sources. This has made it more difficult for opinion leaders to control the flow of information and to maintain their status as experts.
The decline of traditional forms of authority: The decline of traditional forms of authority, such as religion and government, has also made it more difficult for opinion leaders to maintain their influence. People are now more likely to question the authority of opinion leaders and to seek out information from other sources.
The increasing complexity of modern society: The increasing complexity of modern society has made it more difficult for opinion leaders to keep up with the latest trends and developments. This has made it more difficult for them to provide credible and relevant information to their followers.

In order to survive in this changing world, Weimann argues that opinion leaders must:

Specialize: Opinion leaders need to specialize in a particular area of expertise in order to maintain their credibility. This will help them to stand out from the crowd and to attract the attention of potential followers.
Network: Opinion leaders need to network with other opinion leaders in their field. This will help them to stay up-to-date on the latest trends and developments and to share their knowledge with others.
Innovate: Opinion leaders need to constantly innovate in order to stay ahead of the competition. This may involve developing new ways of communicating with their followers or finding new sources of information.

Weimann concludes the chapter by arguing that opinion leadership is still a valuable concept, despite the challenges that opinion leaders face. He encourages opinion leaders to continue to play a role in society by adapting and innovating to meet the needs of their followers.