used to counter attempts at persuasion. However, there are some attitudes so universally held in a group that they are never threatened. Consequently, no arguments relating to them are ever presented. These are known as "cultural truisms." An example in American culture is the value of brushing teeth. Since no argument is ever brought up against brushing teeth, no counters to such an argument are readily available. If the psyoperator can locate such universally held attitudes, he may find a fertile area for persuasion campaigns. In this case, the saliency of the group to the individual would not matter.

SUMMARY

Several problems that membership in a group poses for effective persuasion have been discussed without entering into detail concerning the effects different kinds of groups may have on individual members (that is, potential differences between reference groups and membership groups, or between primary groups and secondary groups). It is enough for the psyoperator to be aware of the presence of group pressures on individuals to conform to the norms, values, and attitudes of the groups, and the effect this might have on PSYOP campaigns. Some sources of group pressures were mentioned in the hope that the psyoperator will use these to his benefit. However, many of these forces are interrelated and should be considered in terms of their potential consequences for each other. In the final analysis, it is not that communication will necessarily be ineffective in the face of group pressures. These pressures only require more work to overcome, and they limit the areas in which any effect can be expected.

PRESTIGIOUS PERSONS AND KEY COMMUNICATORS*

BY RICHARD H. ORTH

The prestigious persons and key communicators who are most likely to be perceived as trustworthy and credible communicants in their own social grouping are important in persuasion and may at times be crucial. They are central figures who have a large voice in determining the direction of future attitude trends.

PRESTIGIOUS PERSONS

The basis of difference between the prestigious person and the population on the whole is demographic, that is, the former tends, generally, to be richer, older, and better educated. To locate the prestigious person, a single classification is not sufficient. For example, although prestige is often associated with being a male, this does not mean that in certain. cultures only males have prestige, nor does it mean that in all cultures.

*Original essay by Richard H. Orth.

the prestigious persons are males. There societies in which a woman may have high prestige as monarch or prime minister.

Another reason for not classifying persons as prestigious on the basis of one factor alone is the prestige enjoyed by the clergy of most nations. A specific instance of this is shown by the Buddhist monks of certain areas in Asia. Even though these monks do not have any material possessions, they clearly enjoy a great deal of prestige.

It is often said that the community or area leaders are the prestigious persons. While prestige is often associated with leadership, not all prestigious persons have an official designation. This can be thought of in terms of two sets of people in the larger of which are all the prestigious persons and in the smaller, all the leaders in an area:

PRESTIGIOUS PERSONS

LEADERS

The figure above indicates that community leadership is a subset of the larger set of the prestigious persons in an area. In other words, to locate the prestigious persons in an area, always consider the factors that are outlined above, and do not stop with merely locating the political leaders.

Thus, although there are certain factors, such as sex, wealth, age, education, and leadership that are generally associated with prestige, these factors should not be taken individually to determine who the prestigious persons are. It is best to take all the factors in combination or to use as many as the situation will permit.

Another method that has been used to locate the prestigious persons is called the nomination technique-asking the people in the area who the prestigious people are. In conjunction with this approach, one can also use what is called a self-nomination technique, that is, asking people if they consider themselves to be prestigious persons.

The nomination technique proceeds as follows. One decides on the specific type of prestigious person one wants to locate-for example, political leader or wealthy person. Then, one asks local people about who is the village headman, who is the landowner, who owns the radio, and the like. It might be that a single characteristic will enable them to tell the PSYOP officer who is the person being sought, or it may require a combination of factors. In either case, the PSYOP officer must be aware of the characteristics he is interested in before he tries to locate the prestigious person according to the nomination method. Often several persons may be nominated by an individual, but there should be enough

agreement on one person for the officer to be sure that he is the one being sought.

KEY COMMUNICATORS

The key communicator is more difficult to differentiate from the rest of the society than the prestigious person. In the most general sense, a key communicator is a person who has the function of spreading information to the various segments of the group to which he belongs. More specifically, the characteristics of the key communicator are as follows:

. He is more highly exposed to the mass media and other sources of information and is usually the one who receives the news from the mass media and spreads it to the rest of the group, at the same time interpreting it for them so they can understand it.1

. He is usually the one who begins the process of popularizing a technological advancement.

• Although found at all social and economic levels, he has a central place in the society. He tends to be socially integrated to a greater degree than most other members of the group; that is, he more closely represents the values of the group. One of his main characteristics is that he tends to be more like the group within which he functions than the prestigious person.

In the spheres of public affairs, agriculture, and medicine, he tends to be high in socioeconomic status.

. He tends to be well-educated.

. He tends to be young.

There are two types of key communicators: (a) those who have influence in one sphere of influence, and (b) those who have influence in several spheres. In traditional societies, key communicators are more likely to be influential in several areas, whereas in transitional or modern societies the other type is more prevalent.2

Although the key communicator is sometimes referred to as an "opinion leader," one must not confuse him with the innovator, that is, the one who tends to be first in adopting new things. The latter is usually somewhat of a deviate from society, while the key communicator is not. Once an innovation is acceptable, however, the key communicator spreads information about it.

A study of urban Thailand found the key communicators to be, in order of importance: monks; professionals; military officials; and, to a lesser degree, government officials; teachers; and merchants.3 Education was a highly important characteristic of Thai key communicators. Younger persons tended to be more aware of foreign news than older persons. Thai key communicators in general were (1) heavily exposed to the mass media (especially printed media), (2) had responsible roles, and (3) were advice-givers in word-of-mouth communications.

To summarize, the key communicator is generally a frequent user of

the mass media, is better educated, and possesses a central place in the society.

How does one locate key communicators? Three methods of identification have been distinguished: 4

1. In the sociometric technique, members of a group are asked to whom they would go for advice or information on a topic;

2. In the key informants method, the surveyor selects persons who appear well-informed and asks them who the key communicators are; 3. In the self-designating technique, a respondent is asked a number of questions that bear on his quality of being a key communicator. In one study, for example, respondents were asked: "In the last six months, were there persons who sought you out in order to discuss their serious problems with you?" and "Are there any persons whom you know who consider you a reliable source of news?" 5

DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN THE PRESTIGIOUS PERSON AND THE KEY COMMUNICATOR

It is often important to distinguish between the prestigious person and the key communicator. One source of distinction is the function that each serves in the society with respect to the flow of information. Oftentimes the prestigious person has been called a gatekeeper. He decides what is passed on to the ordinary people from a higher echelon than his. For example, in developing nations he may decide for the people which advances they should know about and which ones they should not know about. By controlling the flow of information, he controls the movement and the direction of the movement of the particular society.

In a sense the key communicator also controls the movement of a particular society. However, in the key communicator's function as opinion leader, he contributes to the flow rather than the control of information. By the fact that he is integrated into the society, he has a great amount of influence and uses this influence. He is usually considered to be an intermediary between the people and the mass media.

There is a two-step flow between the mass media and the people." Although people may have direct access to the mass media, they may still want what is said in the media to be interpreted by the key communicator.

In summary, the two types of persons may be distinguished from each other on the basis of their communicative relationships with the rest of the society. In addition, they may be distinguished on the basis of their degree of social integration in terms of their adherence to the norms of the society. The key communicator more closely represents the values of the group than does the prestigious person. The difference between key communicators and prestigious persons is not always strong, however. Moreover, there are key communicators among the prestigious people just as there are among other groups.

NOTES

1. Mayone J. Stykos, "Patterns of Communication in a Rural Greek Village," Public Opinion Quarterly (1952), pp. 59-70.

2. Everett M. Rogers and D.C. Cartano, "Methods of Measuring Opinion Leadership," Public Opinion Quarterly, XXVI (1962), pp. 435–441.

3. Milton Jacobs, Farhad Farzanegan, and Alexander R. Askenasy, "A Study of Key Communicators in Urban Thailand," Social Forces, XLV, No. 2 (December 1966), pp. 192-199.

4.

Rogers and Cartano, "Methods of Measuring Opinion Leadership."

5. Jacobs, Farganegan, and Askenasy, “A Study of Key Communicators."

6. Elihu Katz, "The Two-Step Flow of Communication: An Up-to-Date Report on an Hypothesis," Public Opinion Quarterly, XXI (1957), pp. 61-67.

THE PROBLEM OF THE UNINTENDED AUDIENCE*

BY PAUL M.A. LINEBARGER

Despite the best efforts of the communicator, the target of a propaganda message may not always exactly coincide with the actual audience receiving the message; some members of the audience will receive the communicator's message whether he intends them to or not.

One of the continuing problems of mass communications in military situations is that of the unintended audience. The unintended audience can, in one form, come in by listening to radio broadcasts which are not meant for him, by reading our own newspapers and magazines addressed to our home public or our own troops, or even by seeing American movies which have not been edited for specific foreign areas. The other kind of unintended audience can get the American action and words second-hand. Messages originally meant for Americans cross, either in the original English or in translation, into another culture and produce results far from the original utterance. Humor suffers badly in this transition, as it almost always does when transferred from one culture to another. The statement of General Joseph Stilwell, "I claim we took a beating," was meaningless in Chinese, either in a word-to-word translation or in any sort of reasonable context; his statement, which was pleasantly idiomatic and robust for the home audience and for other American soldiers, was weird and inexplicable by the time it reached the unintended audiences.

In a later context, the use of the term "special warfare" by the American Armed Forces in 1961-62 may easily have produced apprehension in the Far Eastern area. "Special" means "secret police," "through bribery and assassination," or by means of espionage"-in the light of the particular use made of the word "special" in the experience of the former Imperial Japanese Army, or in the "special" sections of the Kuomintang party network when it was ruler of the mainland of China. This kind of unintended reaction may be prevented in a few cases. Given a world

*Excerpts from "Essays on Military Psychological Operations," unpublished study, 1965, pp. 52-56.