230THE SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACHFlay, B. R. (1987). Selling the Smokeless Society: Fifty-Six Evaluated Mass MedtaPrograms and Campaigns Worldwide. Washington, D. C,: American Public HealthAssociation.Frankenberger, K. D,, and A. S. Sukhdial (1994). Segmenting teens for AIDS preventivebehaviors with implications for marketing communications. Journal of Public PolicY& Marketing 13:133-150.Lazarsfeld, I? E, B. Berelson, and H. Gaudet (1968). The People’s Choice: How the VoterMakes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign, 3rd ed. New York: ColumbiaUniversity Press.Lewin, K. (1958). Group decision and social change. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb,and E. L. Hartley (eds.), Readings in Social Psychology, 3rd ed., pp. 197-211. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.McAlister, A., A. G. Ramirez, C. Galavotti, and K. J. Gallion (1989). Antismoking campaigns:Progress in the application of social learning theory. In R. E. Rice and C. K. Atkin (eds.),Public Communication Campaigns, 2nd ed., pp. 291-307. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.McBurney, D. H., and V. B. Conings (1977). Introduction to Sensation/Perception.Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Maccoby, N., and J. W. Farquhar (1975). Communicating for health: UnseIling heartdisease. Journal of Communication 25 (no. 3): 114-126.Maccoby, N., and J. W. Farquhar (1976). Bringing the California health report up to date.Journal of Communication 26 (no. 1): 56-57.Marrow, A. J. (1977). The Practical Theorist: The Lz~e and Work of Kurt Lewin. NewYork: Teachers College Press.Pelz, E. B. (1958). Some factors in “group decision.” In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb,and E. L. Hartley (eds.), Readings in Social Psychology, 3rd cd., pp. 212-219. NewYork: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Price, V. (1988). On the public aspects of opinion: Linking levels of analysis in publicopinion research. Communication Research 15 (no. 6): 659-679.Roser, C., J. A. Flora, S. H. Chaffee, and J. W. Farquhar. (1990). Using research to predictlearning from a PR campaign. Public Relations Review 16 (no. 2): 61-77.Sherif, M. (1936). Tbe Psychology of Social Norms. New York: Harper & Brothers.Sherif, M. (1937). An experimental approach to the study of attitudes. Sociometry 1:90-98.Skedgell, R. A. (1966). How computers pick an election winner. Transaction 4 (no. 1):42-46.Solomon, D. S. (1989). A social marketing perspective on communication campaigns. InR. E. Rice and C. K. Atkin (eds.), Public Communication Campaigns, 2nd cd., pp.87-104. Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage.Turner, J. C. (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel(cd.), Social Identity and Intergroup Relations, pp. 15-40. Cambridge, Eng.: CambridgeUniversity Press.Vogel, A. (1994). Model aids in cost-effective communications. Public Relations Journal50 (no. 2): 8-11.chapter11,,,.:MS Media and InterpersonalCom.muniGi.tionThe decades between the two world wars saw an increasing concern with anda fear of the all-powerful nature of the mass media. During the decade of the1920s many people became aware of how widespread and effective had beenthe use of propaganda during the First World War. After the war the use ofadvertising increased dramatically. The decade of the 1930s saw the rising useof radio to address huge audiences on both sides of the Atlantic. In the UnitedStates President Franklin Roosevelt overcame both a hostile press and a hostileCongress by going over their heads directly to the American people with his“fireside chats” on the radio. The impact of radio on the general public can beillustrated by the effect of a 1938 Halloween radio broadcast, Orson Welles’s “warof the Worlds,” which caused panic in some communities. In Europe radio wasput to far different and more sustained and dangerous uses by Adolf Hitler inhis attempt to conquer the world.Under these conditions it is no surprise that the prevalent image of the massmedia was that of a hypodermic needle or a bullet. This was a concept of themedia with direct, immediate, and powerful effects on any individual theyreached. It was parallel to the stimulus-response principle that characterizedmuch of psychological research in the 1930s and 1940s.The decade of the 1$)40s began with both Europe and Asia at war. Japanesearmies were deep in China. Hitler’s blitzkrieg had overrun Poland in a few weeks,then turned west, invaded Denmark and Norway, defeated France in six weeks,and forced the British to evacuate the remains of their army from the beachesof Dunkirk to defend their home islands. Under these circumstances PresidentRoosevelt announced that he would run for a third term—a move unprecedentedin American history.232THE SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACHAt Columbia University a group of social scientists at the Bureau of AppliedSocial Research became concerned about the apparently all-pervasive directeffects of the media on individuals and what this might imply for the give andtake of the democratic process.THE MASS MEDIA AND VOTING BEHAVIORTo investigate the effects of the mass media on political behavior, the researchersfrom the Columbia Bureau of Applied Social Research selected four groups ofregistered voters from Erie County, Ohio. This was a typical county in that ithad voted in every presidential election as the nation had voted up to that time.These voters were then interviewed at intervals throughout the campaign todetermine what factors had the greatest influence in their decision makingregarding the election.The design used three control groups to check on any effects of the sevenmonthly interviews of the main panel. All four groups (with 600 registered votersin each) were interviewed in May. The panel was interviewed every month afterthe May interview up to the November election and then immediately after it.Each of the three control groups was interviewed once after the initial inter-view—one in July, one in August, and one in October (Lazarsfeld, Berelson, &Gaudet, 1948).Because the hypodermic model of the effects of mass media prevailed amongcommunication researchers at the time, the 1940 Erie County study was designedto demonstrate the power of the mass media in affecting voting decisions. Tworesearchers said, “This study went to great lengths to determine how the massmedia brought about such changes” (Lazarsfeld & Menzel, 1963, p. 96).What the researchers found was that “personal contacts appear to have beenboth more frequent and more effective than the mass media in influencing votingdecision”