|
AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF THE INFLUENCE OF PERCEIVED ATTRIBUTES OF
PUBLICS ON PUBLIC RELATIONS STRATEGY USE AND EFFECTIVENESS
By
Kelly Page Werder
Assistant Professor
School of Mass Communications
University of South Florida
4202 E. Fowler Ave., CIS1040
Tampa, FL 33620-7800
(813) 974-6790
[log in to unmask]
A paper submitted to the Public Relations Division of the Association for
Education in Journalism and Mass Communication for presentation at the
AEJMC 2003 Convention, July 30--August 2; Kansas City, MO
AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF THE INFLUENCE OF PERCEIVED ATTRIBUTES OF
PUBLICS ON PUBLIC RELATIONS STRATEGY USE AND EFFECTIVENESS
This study replicated and extended previous research by examining the
influence of problem recognition, constraint recognition, involvement, and
goal compatibility on use of informative, facilitative, persuasive, and
cooperative problem solving strategies. Members of PRSA (n=403) were
surveyed using direct mail and online modes of administration. Results
indicate that perceived attributes of publics significantly influence
public relations strategy use in organizations. In addition, attributes of
publics were significant predictors of strategy effectiveness. Goal
compatibility was found to be the strongest predictor of effectiveness
across strategies.
An important limitation that exists in our current understanding of public
relations derives from the fact that the discipline has traditionally taken
an organization-centered rather than a communication-centered approach in
explaining public relations behavior. Public relations research has
historically viewed the organization as the unit of analysis, describing
public relations as a management function influenced primarily by factors
related to the organization (J. E. Grunig, 1989a, 1992, 2001; J. E. Grunig
& L. Grunig, 1992; J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984). According to Karlberg
(1996), research conducted under this premise has conceptualized public
relations as "a commercial management function–a means of influencing
consumer value and behavior, of cultivating markets, of corporate image
control, and of issues management" (p. 266). Consequently, a number of
scholars have argued for more theory-driven research that examines public
relations from a communication perspective (Botan & Hazleton, 1989; Botan &
Soto, 1998; Hallahan, 2000b; Leitch & Neilson, 2001; Springston & Keyton,
2001).
From a communication perspective, public relations is viewed as a dynamic
process influenced by the situational interaction of source, message, and
receiver variables. According to Hazleton and Botan (1989), this approach
offers several advantages. The primary advantage is that it allows
application of metatheoretic, theoretic, and methodological tools from
communication and other social sciences for understanding the public
relations behavior of organizations. In addition, a communication
perspective allows a more detailed examination of message and receiver
variables–two elements of the public relations process that have been
minimally explored in research.
The message variable in the public relations process has been largely
overlooked by scholars. According to Hallahan (2000a), creating effective
messages to reach strategically important publics is a critical function of
public relations; yet, theorists have failed to develop message strategies
for communicating with publics (p. 464). Similarly, Springston and Keyton
(2001) stated that, although scholars have described the need for
delivering strategic messages concurrently to multiple publics, a
theoretically grounded methodology for analyzing messages sent to publics
has not been offered (p. 117).
Research concerning the influence of receiver variables on the public
relations process is also sparse. Aside from the situational theory of
publics, variables related to the public–the receiver of organizational
messages–have received little attention, as noted by several public
relations scholars. In 1992, Moffitt stated that one of the "central, but
often neglected, issues to everything public relations is about–theory,
research, practice, pedagogy–is the concept and definition of a public" (p.
18). Hallahan (2000b) also argued that the idea of a public is one of the
most conceptually troublesome notions in contemporary public relations.
Perhaps more important than the lack of research on message and receiver
variables in public relations is the absence of a theoretical framework
that links the two. According to Botan and Soto (1998), surprisingly little
has been written about strategic communication and what it means for
publics. They noted that, "because of the organization-centered perspective
dominant in public relations and organizational communication scholarship,
the whole field of communication has produced little research on publics or
their internal functioning" (p. 23). In addition, Hallahan (2000a) stated
that, "with the exception of limited-purpose situational theory, the public
relations literature contains no systematic model that addresses how to
segment publics or how different patterns of information processing by
publics might impact message strategy" (p. 464). In fact, situational
theory identifies relevant publics and when messages should be directed to
publics, but it doesn't address message content (Vasquez, 1993). Thus, the
relationship between the strategic messages communicated by organizations
and the publics they are communicating with remains largely unexplored.
The lack of a theoretical linkage between publics and the messages directed
to them by organizations has resulted in limited understanding of public
relations strategy use in organizations and the effectiveness of strategies
in achieving organizational goals. This indicates the need for more
positive theory in public relations. Positive theories describe phenomena,
events or activities as they actually occur; they are practical
applications that represent reality (J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig, 1992).
According to Massy and Weitz (1977; cited in J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig,
1992), positive theories are useful in understanding problems. In addition,
positive theories may predict outcomes if they are accurate, valid, and
reliable in their description.
The purpose of this study is to further theory-driven research in public
relations by conducting an empirical analysis of the influence of
attributes of publics on public relations strategy use and effectiveness in
organizations. Specifically, this study seeks to replicate and extend
previous research by examining how the attributes of problem recognition,
constraint recognition, involvement, and goal compatibility are related to
use of informative, facilitative, persuasive, and cooperative problem
solving strategies in organizations and the effectiveness of these
strategies in achieving organizational goals. In accomplishing this
objective, this study attempts to provide a foundation for the development
of a positive theory of public relations strategy use in organizations that
links the message and receiver variables inherent in the public relations
process.
Review of Literature
Hazleton and Long's (1988) public relations process model provides the
theoretical foundation for this study. Adopting a general systems theory
approach, Hazleton and Long define public relations as "a communication
function of management through which organizations adapt to, alter or
maintain their environment for the purpose of achieving organizational
goals" (p. 81).[1]
The public relations process model (see Figure 1) conceptualizes public
relations as an open system consisting of a multi-dimensional environment
and three subsystems. At the macroscopic level, the environment is the
system and public relations input, transformation, and output processes are
made up of the organization, communication, and target audience subsystems.
Each of these subsystems, considered microscopically, possesses its own
input-transformation-output cycles (p. 82).
Specifically, the public relations process consists of "(1) input from the
environment (exogenous input) to the system, (2) transformation of inputs
into communication goals, objectives, and campaigns, and (3) output, in the
form of messages, to target audiences located in internal and external
environments. Target audience reactions to public relations messages
provide stimuli or further input for organizational maintenance or
adaption, refinement of the public relations process, and alteration of the
environment in which the organization exists" (Hazleton & Long, 1988, p.
80). [2]
The public relations process model describes public relations as
goal-driven communication strategies used by organizations to interact with
target publics existing in their environment. According to Hazleton (1993),
goals direct behavior and are central to the public relations process.
Public relations goals are a consequence of organizational goals and
provide the impetus for organizational goal achievement through
communication. However, goals must be translated into communication
strategies that define appropriate and effective action for goal
achievement. This is facilitated in two ways. First, characteristics of
strategies must be examined in order to identify constraints on strategy
selection. Second, characteristics of audiences (referred to as attributes
of publics) must be examined in order to select strategies most appropriate
to specific audience segments.
Public relations strategies
A strategy is an observable phenomenon that refers to a behavioral sequence
enacted in pursuit of some goal or objective (Greene, 1990). According to
Hazleton (1993), public relations behavior in organizations is enacted
through communication strategies designed to achieve organizational goals.
Communication strategies are manifest in the form of messages directed to
target audiences located in the environment. This manifestation is a
functional result of the communication process–a process defined by
encoding and delivery of messages through the analysis of symbols.
Hazleton (1993) stated that symbols are observable tangible parts of the
communication process. Public relations communication consists of one or
more symbols encoded as a message by an organization and decoded by a
public. For communication to be effective, symbols must be shared or at
least understood by both source and receiver. As socially constructed
objects, symbols take physical form and have predictable effects.
According to Hazleton and Long (1988), it is possible to analyze messages
as symbolic communication that contains unique physical, psychological, and
social properties. "Physically, messages are tangible stimuli that can be
perceived. Psychologically, meanings attributed to messages by receivers
can be specified. Socially, significant others influence individual message
evaluation processes" (p. 85).
Hazleton (1993) used these concepts to develop a matrix (see Figure 2) for
the analysis of public relations messages as symbolic communication. The
top of the matrix reflects increasing levels of abstraction of the audience
in terms of message effects and message processing. The left side of the
matrix consists of three general concepts–content, structure, and
function–that reflect assumptions about the characteristics of messages.
Hazleton identified six functions of messages at the psychological level
that reflect message effects common to public relations. These functions
represent the goals of public relations in terms of the impact messages
have on audiences and the meanings audiences attribute to messages. The
first four functions–facilitate, inform, persuade, and coerce–derive from
social change literature and include concepts for planned change identified
by Zaltman and Duncan (1977). The last two functions–bargaining and problem
solving–incorporate J. E. Grunig's ideas about direction and purpose of
communication (J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984). These strategies reflect
characteristics of the two-way asymmetrical and two-way symmetrical models
of public relations described in J. E. Grunig's excellence theory (1992).
Hazleton (1992) used these psychological functions of messages to develop a
taxonomy of seven public relations strategies organizations use when
communicating with publics. He labeled the strategies informative,
facilitative, persuasive, promise and reward, threat and punishment,
bargaining, and cooperative problem solving. Because informative,
facilitative, persuasive, and cooperative problem solving strategies are
most frequently used in organizations (Page & Hazleton, 1999), they are the
focus of the present study.
Informative strategy. An informative strategy is based on the presentation
of unbiased facts and assumes a rational and motivated audience.
Informative messages do not draw conclusions, but instead presume the
public will infer appropriate conclusions from accurate data. Informative
messages may suggest a variety of alternative solutions to problems. In
addition, they are characterized by the use of neutral language and
organic, or natural, patterns of organization to aid comprehension.
According to Zaltman and Duncan (1977), informative strategies are most
effective when behavioral change within a target public does not have to
occur quickly. Informative strategies are effective in enhancing problem
recognition, so they may be used to build a foundation for future learning.
In addition, they can be effective in creating awareness of a problem and
establishing perceptions that a known problem can be resolved, but when an
organization does not possess the resources to sustain long-term
involvement, an informative strategy alone will not be effective (p. 132).
Facilitative strategy. A facilitative strategy is accomplished by making
resources available to a public that allow it to act in ways that it is
already predisposed to act. Resources may be tangible artifacts, such as
tools or money, or they may be directions for accomplishing specific tasks.
According to Zaltman and Duncan (1977), facilitative strategies are useful
when the public recognizes a problem, agrees remedial action is needed, is
open to external assistance, and is willing to engage in self-help.
Facilitative strategies are most effective when used with a program that
creates awareness among the public of the availability of assistance.
Facilitative strategies may be used to compensate for low motivation and
are indicated when target publics lack the resources needed to implement or
maintain a change.
Persuasive strategy. A persuasive strategy is characterized by appeals to a
public's values or emotions. This strategy may include a selective
presentation of information. It may use language that is not neutral and
reflects the importance of the issue and/or the involvement of the source
in the situation. Persuasive messages are directive in that they contain a
call for action, either tacitly or explicitly. According to Zaltman and
Duncan (1977), persuasive strategies are indicated when a problem is not
recognized or considered important by a public, when involvement is low, or
when a particular solution is not perceived to be effective. Persuasive
strategies are useful when it is necessary to induce a public to reallocate
resources from one program or activity to an alternative advocated by the
organization. These strategies are often used when an organization does not
have direct control over a public through the manipulation of resources
valued by the public, and they are useful when time constraints are great
and the ability to use power is low (p. 151).
Cooperative problem solving strategy. A cooperative problem solving
strategy reflects a willingness to jointly define problems and solutions to
problems. Messages derived from this strategy are characterized by an open
exchange of information to establish a common definition of the problem,
common goals, and to share positions and responsibilities about the issue.
These strategies use inclusive symbols, such as 'we.' In addition, this
strategy reflects characteristics of J. E. Grunig's two-way symmetrical
model in that there is a sense of interdependence among the organization
and its publics. Cooperation is effective when the organization and the
public recognize their interdependence and feel a need for each other's
participation in the identification of problems and the development of
alternative solutions. The more compatible the goals of differing parties
are, the more likely a cooperative problem solving strategy will be
effective. All parties must be able to agree on a common problem definition
and common solution; therefore, openness and fairness characterize these
strategies.
The public relations process model and its accompanying taxonomy of public
relations strategies offers a communication-centered framework for
understanding the public relations behavior of organizations. An underlying
assumption of the model is that it is situational, asserting that an
organization's perception of the audience it is communicating with at a
given time guides the organization's strategy selection (Hazleton, 1993).
Attributes of publics can be identified by organizations during the
research and analysis phase of the public relations decision process and
used to select public relations strategies most appropriate and effective
in achieving organizational goals. In this way, organizational goals are
aligned with attributes of publics to facilitate strategy use, and public
relations strategies become the functional link between organizational
goals and publics. Moreover, by viewing public relations strategies as
symbolic messages guided by attributes of publics, it is possible to
predict the effectiveness of strategies in achieving organizational goals.
However, the attributes of publics that influence public relations strategy
use and effectiveness must be identified.
Attributes of publics
Scholars have long argued that communicators should adapt messages to
audiences in order to produce effective outcomes (Littlejohn, 1983). The
idea of audience segmentation into homogeneous groups that are likely to
respond similarly to a message is widely accepted, although there is little
agreement on the audience variables most appropriate to predicting
communication outcomes (Cline, McBride, & Miller, 1989; Hazleton, 1992; J.
E. Grunig, 1989b; Scott & O'Hair, 1989).
Research shows support for the efficacy of the attributes of publics
identified by the situational theory of publics (J. E. Grunig, 1997).
Introduced more than three decades ago, the situational theory posits that
"communication behaviors of publics can be best understood by measuring how
members of publics perceive situations in which they are affected by
organizational consequences" (J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984, p. 148).
J. E. Grunig (1978) adopted Dewey's (1927) definition of a public, stating
that organizational publics are formed "when a group of people: (1) face a
similar indeterminate situation; (2) recognize what is problematic in the
situation; (3) organize to do something about the problem" (p. 109).
Specifically, J. E. Grunig used problem recognition, level of involvement,
and constraint recognition as independent variables to predict whether a
public will engage in information seeking or information processing
behavior (J.E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984).
Information seeking is characterized by active communication behavior—the
planned scanning of the environment for messages about a specific topic
(Clarke & Kline, 1974; cited in J. E. Grunig, 1997). Individuals who are
active communicators expend effort to locate and consume information about
the issue under consideration. J. E. Grunig (1997) said that individuals
"communicating actively develop more organized cognitions, are more likely
to have attitudes about a situation, and more often engage in behavior to
do something about the situation" (p. 6). Information processing is the
unplanned discovery of a message followed by continued processing of it
(Clarke & Kline, 1974; cited in J. E. Grunig, 1997). It is characterized as
passive communication with low levels of activity. It produces little or no
effort on the part of the individual to seek information. If the situation
is somewhat involving, however, the individual will passively process
information as it is presented.
Problem recognition is the extent to which individuals perceive that a
situation has consequence for them, detect a problem in the situation, and
begin to think about ways to solve the problem (J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984).
Problems may arise externally from the situation, environment, or social
system (J. E. Grunig, 1989a), or they may arise internally from curiosity
or lack of understanding (J. E. Grunig & Childers, 1988). The situational
theory of publics posits that problem recognition increases the likelihood
that a member of a public will both seek and process information.
Constraint recognition represents the extent to which individuals perceive
obstacles, or barriers, in a situation that limit their freedom to plan
their own behavior (J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984). According to the
situational theory of publics, a high level of constraint recognition
lessens the likelihood that people will seek information or that they will
process information that comes to them randomly. "People do not communicate
about problems or issues about which they believe they can do little or
about behaviors they do not believe they have the personal efficacy to
execute" (J. E. Grunig & Repper, 1992, p. 135).
Involvement is the extent to which an issue, problem, or situation has
personal relevance to an individual (J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984). When
people perceive they are involved in a situation, they will be more likely
to actively seek information. Similarly, if an individual personally
connects to an issue or message, that individual will more likely attend to
and comprehend it. However, research has shown that even when individuals
have low involvement, they still process information passively (J. E.
Grunig, 1979).
J. E. Grunig and Hunt (1984) summarized the influence of the three
independent variables of the situational theory by stating that "high
problem recognition, low constraint recognition, and high level of
involvement increase information seeking. High problem recognition and low
constraint recognition also increase information processing. Level of
involvement, however, has a limited effect on information processing" (p.
153).
The situational theory has been widely applied in public relations
research, which has contributed to a fuller understanding of the variables
of interest and aided the theory's development. The theory was extended in
1997, when J.E. Grunig asserted that problem recognition, constraint
recognition, and level of involvement each have internal and external
components. He stated, "For problem recognition, the distinction lies in
the fact that problems recognized could be in a person's environment or
strictly in his or her mind. Internal problems reflect curiosity or
intellectual interests. External problems are problems with which an
individual conceivably would have to deal in the real world" (1997, p. 26).
In explaining the distinction between internal and external constraint
recognition, J. E. Grunig drew from Weick's (1979) cognitive theory of
organizations, which states that the environment of an organization exists
partly in the mind of the people who observe it and partly 'out there.'
Thus, constraints can be either internal or external (p. 26). In
differentiating internal and external involvement, J. E. Grunig drew from
Salmon (1986), stating that internal involvement is ego involvement, which
exists in a person's mind, and external involvement is actual involvement
in a situation that occurs in a person's real-world environment.
In summarizing how these dimensions influence the segmentation of publics,
J. E. Grunig (1997) stated that internal situational concepts identify
intellectual publics—publics that are concerned about a problem but not
active in doing something about it. Conversely, the external concepts
identify publics that are actually engaged in behavior to do something
about a problem. Although research using the internal and external
components of the independent variables is limited, J. E. Grunig and
Childers (1988) found that internal and external problem recognition
explained communication behavior better than the internal and external
dimensions of involvement and constraint recognition. They also found that
external problem recognition was related to internal involvement,
suggesting that people most often recognize problems that are related to
their self-identity.
The situational theory of publics provides a foundation for understanding
the concept of publics and the variables important to segmentation of
publics; however, research indicates that goal compatibility is an
attribute of publics that influences the public relations behavior of
organizations. Goal compatibility is the extent to which the goals or
objectives of one party are similar to and coincide with the goals and
objectives of another party (Page & Hazleton, 1999). According to Page
(2000a), goal compatibility can be conceptualized as an attribute of
publics that represents the degree to which members of a public perceive
their goals to be similar to and coincide with the goals of an organization.
The findings of several studies indicate that public relations strategy
selection is most effective when goal compatibility between an organization
and its publics is considered (Hazleton, 1992; Page, 2000a, 2000b; Page &
Hazleton, 1999). Organizations can determine the perceived goal
compatibility of publics during the research and analysis phase of the
public relations process, and use this information to strategically
communicate with these groups. Page argued that, if members of a public
perceive that an organization's goals are similar to their own, they will
likely be more receptive to messages output from the organization.
Conversely, a public may resist messages if its goals are not aligned with
those of the organization (Page & Hazleton, 1999; Page, 2000a, 2000b).
Linking public relations strategies and attributes of publics
Although empirical research using Hazleton and Long's public relations
process model is limited several studies have examined concepts central to
the model. In the first empirical study using the strategy taxonomy, Page
and Hazleton (1999) surveyed members (n=111) of the Public Relations
Society of America via direct mail to measure strategy use in the
implementation of public relations campaigns. Page and Hazleton found
significant differences in frequency of strategy use across strategies and
reported that strategy type accounted for approximately 40% of the variance
in frequency of strategy use measures, F(6,564)=63.753, p=.000.
Specifically, the study found that organizations use persuasive strategies
most frequently, followed by nformative, cooperative problem solving, and
facilitative strategies. Promise and reward, bargaining, and threat and
punishment strategies were found to be the least frequently used by
practitioners. Two subsequent studies measuring frequency of strategy use
produced similar results (Page, 2000a, 2000b).
Page and Hazleton (1999) also examined the relationship between attributes
of publics, strategy use in organizations, and strategy effectiveness in
achieving organizational goals. They found that the attributes of problem
recognition, constraint recognition, involvement, and goal compatibility
were significant predictors of strategy use in organizations,
F(27,26)=2.547, p=.01. Strategy type accounted for 72.6% of the variance in
attributes of publics across strategies. In addition, attributes of publics
were found to significantly influence public relations strategy
effectiveness. Specifically, goal compatibility was found to be the primary
contributor to unique variance in effectiveness for five of the strategies.
Based on these findings, Page and Hazleton proposed the foundation of a
positive theory of public relations strategy use to be tested in future
research.
The research reviewed here suggests an area of public relations scholarship
in need of further investigation. Preliminary results suggest that the
public relations strategy taxonomy proposed by Hazleton provides a useful
framework for understanding the message variable in the public relations
process. In an attempt to provide further validation for the taxonomy, as
well as to extend research on attributes of publics, the current study
seeks to replicate and extend Page and Hazleton's 1999 study by testing the
hypotheses they proposed as the foundation of a positive theory of pubic
relations strategy use in organizations.
Purpose and hypotheses
The purpose of this study is to contribute to theory-driven research in
public relations by conducting an empirical analysis of the influence of
attributes of publics on public relations strategy use and effectiveness in
organizations. Specifically, this study seeks to replicate and extend
previous research by examining how the attributes of problem recognition,
constraint recognition, involvement, and goal compatibility are related to
use of informative, persuasive, facilitative, and cooperative problem
solving strategies in organizations and the effectiveness of these
strategies in achieving organizational goals. In accomplishing this
objective, this study attempts to provide a foundation for the development
of a positive theory of public relations strategy use in organizations that
links the message and receiver variables inherent to the public relations
process. This objective is accomplished by empirically testing the
following hypotheses and related propositions:
H1: In the implementation of public relations campaigns, informative and
persuasive strategies are used more frequently than facilitative and
cooperative problem solving strategies.
H2: Perceived attributes of publics influence public relations strategy use
in organizations.
P2.1: When informative strategies are used, practitioners perceive the
public as having low problem recognition and low goal compatibility.
P2.2: When facilitative strategies are used, practitioners perceive the
public as having moderate problem recognition, high goal compatibility,
high involvement, and information processing behavior.
P2.3: When persuasive strategies are used, practitioners perceive the
public as having low problem recognition, low goal compatibility, low
involvement, and information seeking behavior.
P2.4: When cooperative problem-solving strategies are used, practitioners
perceive the public as having high problem recognition, high goal
compatibility, and information seeking behavior.
H3: Perceived attributes of publics are predictors of public relations
strategy effectiveness.
P3.1: Informative strategy effectiveness is predicted by perceived goal
compatibility and problem recognition.
P3.2: Facilitative strategy effectiveness is predicted by perceived goal
compatibility and information processing behavior.
P3.3: Persuasive strategy effectiveness is predicted by perceived goal
compatibility.
P3.4: Cooperative problem solving strategy effectiveness is predicted by
perceived goal compatibility and problem recognition.
In addition to the primary objective of this study, a secondary objective
is to develop a greater understanding of how goal compatibility functions
as an attribute of publics. Specifically, this research seeks to determine
if goal compatibility is related to the independent and dependent variables
of the situational theory of publics. Thus, it explores the following
research questions:
RQ1: Is goal compatibility related to problem recognition, constraint
recognition, and involvement in publics?
RQ2: Does goal compatibility influence the information seeking and
information processing behavior of publics?
Method
A survey of public relations practitioners was conducted to measure the
variable of interest. The survey was both descriptive and analytical in
nature and used a repeated measures design to allow analysis of four public
relations strategies simultaneously.
Instrumentation
The instrument used in this study measured practitioner perceptions of
frequency of strategy use, attributes of publics related to strategy use,
and strategy effectiveness across four strategies. To test frequency of
strategy use, respondents were given a definition of each public relations
strategy and asked to rate how often the strategy was used by their
organization. Responses were recorded on a 7-point scale anchored by the
statements: My organization has frequently used this strategy, and My
organization has never used this strategy. The operationalization of each
strategy is provided in Table 1.
For each of the four public relations strategies, practitioners were asked
to respond to 16 items measuring attributes of publics. Specifically,
respondents were asked to recall a recent instance when their organization
used the strategy and to rate the degree to which each item described the
attributes of the organization's target public. Responses were recorded on
a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7
(strongly agree).
To measure the situational theory's independent variables of problem
recognition, constraint recognition, and involvement, a combination of
items was used. Specifically, items that showed significance in Page and
Hazleton's (1999) study were replicated in this study. These items were
based on J. E. Grunig's (J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984) original
conceptualization of the variables, which he stated reflect the external
perceptions publics have of real situations. In addition, original items
were developed for this study to reflect the external and internal
components of problem recognition, constraint recognition, and involvement
(see J. E. Grunig, 1997).
The following items were used to measure external and internal problem
recognition:
1. The public recognized the existence of a problem. (external; Page &
Hazleton, 1999)
2. The public thought the situation was serious. (external)
3. The members of the public seemed like they wanted to understand the
situation better. (internal)
The following items were used to measure external and internal constraint
recognition:
4. The public could not solve the problem. (external; Page & Hazleton, 1999)
5. There were constraints, or obstacles, that limited the public's ability
to make a difference in the situation. (external)
6. The public did not understand the situation enough to do anything about
it. (internal)
The following items were used to measure external and internal involvement:
7. The members of the public were personally affected by the problem.
(external; Page & Hazleton, 1999)
8. The public was highly involved in the situation. (external)
9. The members of the public had strong opinions about the situation.
(internal)
The instrument also included items designed to measure the situational
theory's dependent variables of information seeking and information
processing. These items were included to test the theory, as well as to
determine the influence of active and passive communication behavior on
strategy use and effectiveness. Again, items that showed significance in
Page and Hazleton's (1999) study were replicated. In addition, new items
were developed to reflect measures typically used by J. E. Grunig (1997).
The following items were used to measure information seeking behavior:
10. The public was actively seeking information about the situation. (Page
& Hazleton, 1999)
11. The members of the public sought information from my organization
about the situation.
The following items were used to measure information processing behavior:
12. The members of the public consumed information given to them, but did
not actively seek it out. (Page & Hazleton, 1999)
13. The public paid attention to messages from my organization when this
strategy was used.
Goal compatibility was measured using a three-item index to increase the
reliability of the measure. The single-item measure used in Page and
Hazleton's study was replicated and two similar items were included. The
following items were used to measure goal compatibility:
14. The goals of the public were compatible with the goals of my
organization. (Page & Hazleton, 1999)
15. The public wanted the same thing my organization wanted.
16. My organization and the public had different goals. (reversed)
Six items were used to measure public relations strategy effectiveness in
this study. The items were measured on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1
(strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). To create a balanced measure of
effectiveness, three items measured strategy effectiveness in achieving
organizational goals, and three items measured strategy effectiveness in
achieving the goals of the target public. For the organizational index, the
single-item measure of strategy effectiveness used in Page and Hazleton's
(1999) study was replicated. In addition, two similarly worded items were
included to increase measurement reliability.
Three items measured strategy effectiveness in achieving organizational goals:
1. This strategy was successful in achieving the goals of my organization.
2. My organization got what it wanted when this strategy was used.
3. When my organization used this strategy, the outcome was favorable for
my organization.
Three similar items measured strategy effectiveness in achieving the
public's goals:
4. This strategy was successful in achieving the goals of the public.
5. The public got what it wanted when this strategy was used.
6. When my organization used this strategy, the outcome was favorable for
the public.
In addition to the items above, practitioners were asked eight demographic
questions. Categorical level variables included gender, accreditation
status, position/title, salary, education, and organization type.
Continuous variables included tenure in current position and years of
experience in public relations. The response categories for categorical
variables used in this study matched those used by PRSA to collect member
demographics.
The operationalization of variables in this study produced 23 items for
each of the four strategies, as well as eight demographic items. This
resulted in a 100-item questionnaire.
Sampling procedures
To measure public relations practitioner perceptions of strategy use and
effectiveness, members of the Public Relations Society of America were
selected as the population of interest. PRSA is the world's largest
organization of public relations professionals, with nearly 20,000. The
PRSA Membership Register (2000-2001), known as The Blue Book, was used as
the sample frame for this study.
Austin & Pinkleton (2001) and Dillman (2000) reported that, for a
population of 20,000, a final sample size of 377 is needed to produce
findings with a +/-5% margin of error at a 95% confidence level. Therefore,
377 was set as the minimum number of questionnaire responses needed to
produce meaningful results.
The names of 1,150 public relations practitioners were randomly drawn from
The Blue Book using a systematic sampling method with a random start.
Practitioners who resided outside of the United States, educators, and
retirees were excluded from the sample.
Data collection procedures
In order to maintain the representativeness of the sample and accommodate
the resource constraints of the researcher, a mixed-mode approach was used
to collect data for this study. Mixed-mode surveys are used most frequently
to reduce costs, but they can also reduce nonresponse, improve coverage,
improve measurement, and be more convenient (Dillman, 2000). In this study,
the use of a large sample required a mode of administration that balanced
cost and time constraints with the appropriateness of the mode to the
sample frame. An inspection of the contact information provided by PRSA
members indicated that most practitioners in the sample (77.8%) listed an
email address. This presented an opportunity to reach these practitioners
using Internet-based survey methods.
According to Couper (2000), the use of Internet-based surveys is increasing
rapidly, mainly because researchers can access large numbers of respondents
much quicker and at a much lower cost than with traditional administration
methods. Dillman (2000) stated that electronic survey methods offer
important efficiencies to the design and administration of
self-administered questionnaires, including "nearly complete elimination of
paper, postage, mailout, and data entry costs" (p. 352). In addition,
response time is greatly reduced, and costs to add additional participant
are much less than with traditional modes.
Due to the benefits offered by online administration, this mode was used to
survey PRSA member in the sample who listed an email address (n=895). PRSA
members who did not list an email address (n=255) were surveyed via direct
mail. This served to maintain the randomness of the sample and allowed
comparison of new and traditional modes of administration.
For the direct mail mode of administration, three contacts were made with
potential respondents. Contacts included a prenotification letter, the
survey package, and a reminder postcard. All contacts used altruistic
compliance-gaining appeals intended to convince practitioners of the
importance of the research and persuade them to participate in the study.
The online instrument and supporting materials replicated the direct mail
survey to the extent possible, while taking advantage of the design
capabilities offered by the Web. The Web page was posted on the sponsoring
academic department's Web server, which added legitimacy to the survey by
linking it to the sponsoring university. The likelihood of participation
from individuals not included in the sample frame was minimized by using a
secure Web server and a unique URL (Web address) that was known only to
participants in this study. To ensure the confidentiality of responses and
avoid ethical issues related to collecting information unknown to
respondents, online survey responses were not linked to email addresses in
any way. This resulted in anonymous responses and prevented response tracking.
Practitioners in the online survey were contacted four times. Contacts
included a prenotification message, the survey request, and two reminder
notices. All contacts contained the words "Public Relations Research" in
the subject field of the email message.
Prior to administering the survey, a pretest was conducted to determine the
instrument's face validity and ease of use, as well as to gauge potential
response rates. A sample of 50 public relations practitioners was drawn
from the PRSA membership directory using random sampling with a systematic
start. Of the 50 practitioners selected for inclusion in the pretest
sample, 24% (n=12) did not have an email address and were surveyed via
direct mail. Two practitioners responded to the direct mail questionnaire,
yielding a 16.7% response rate for this mode. The 38 practitioners who
provided email contact information in the PRSA membership directory were
surveyed online. Five practitioners responded to the online pretest,
yielding a response rate of 13.2%.
The results of the pretest suggest that the instrument has face validity,
and responses indicated variance among the items across strategies. In
addition, technical problems with the online survey were identified and
appropriate steps taken to ensure reliable data collection.
Response statistics
Of the total sample of 255 practitioners for the direct mail survey, 14
practitioners had invalid contact information. This resulted in a valid
sample of 241 practitioners. Of these, 54 completed and returned the
questionnaire, yielding a response rate of 22.4% and a completion rate of
21.2%. Six practitioners refused to participate in the study, resulting in
a refusal rate of 2.5%.
The total sample size for the online survey was 895. Of these, 386 were
invalid contacts, resulting in a valid sample of 509. Of these, 128
practitioners completed the online questionnaire, yielding a response rate
of 25.1% and a completion rate of 14.3%.
The total sample of 1,150 PRSA members, surveyed via both modes of
administration, produced only 182 completed questionnaires, which was
significantly lower than the 377 responses required for meaningful data
analysis. Thus, a second sample of practitioners was surveyed using online
administration.
A second sample of 1,703 practitioners was drawn from The Blue Book using
random sampling methods with a systematic start. The sample size was
increased due to the large number of undeliverable email addresses and the
low response rate produced by the previous online sample. Practitioners who
were included in the first sample were excluded from the second sample. The
second sample was surveyed using the same methods as the previous online
survey; however, an additional reminder notice was sent.
The response statistics for this study are provided in Table 2. It should
be noted that the total number of survey respondents across samples and
modes of administration (n=403) produced a response rate of 24.4% and
constitutes 2% of the total sample frame of 19,593 PRSA members.
Results
All data analysis in this study was conducted using SPSS 10.1 for Windows.
A p < .05 significance level was used as the criterion to reject the null
hypothesis for all statistical tests performed. Due to the nature of the
survey instrument, partially completed questionnaires were used in the data
analysis, so the number of respondents varied for each statistical test.
Analysis of the data collected in this study began with examining
differences in mode of administration. Specifically, independent samples t
tests were conducted to determine if significant differences existed in
responses for the direct mail and online modes of administration. Of the 94
items tested, four items produced a significant t-value. However, the
effect size for each of the items was not large. Similarly, independent
samples t tests were conducted to examine differences in responses between
the first and second samples. Of the 94 items tested, eight items produced
significant t-values; however, the effect sizes produced were small. No
trends were identified; therefore, data analysis proceed with examination
of demographic variables.
Analysis of demographics
The results of the analysis of categorical demographic variables are shown
in Table 3. All percentages reflect the valid sample. The demographic
characteristics of the sample in this study were compared to those reported
by PRSA. While not identical, there appears to be enough similarity to
provide support for generalizing the results of this study to the parent
population.
Next, a series of one-way ANOVA tests were conducted to determine if
demographic characteristics were related to public relations strategy use.
Specifically, the frequency of use measure for each of the four strategies
was entered as the dependent variable and each categorical demographic
variable was entered as the independent variable. Two variables, gender and
organization type, produced a significant effect on use of one or more
strategies. Results of the ANOVA indicated that gender has a significant
effect on use of the facilitative strategy, F(2,296)=4.328, p=.038, partial
_2=.014. Specifically, females (n=164, _=4.46) reported using the
facilitative strategy significantly more than their male (n=134, _=3.94)
counterparts. However, the effect size was small.
The results of the ANOVA indicated that organization type has a significant
effect on use of the informative and facilitative strategies. Specifically,
5.6% of the variance in use of the informative strategy is explained by
organization type, F(7,287)=2.420, p=.02, partial _2=.056. A Levene's test
for homogeneity of variance was significant (p=.01); so multiple
comparisons were made using the LSD procedure. Results indicated that
government agencies (_=5.51) use informative strategies significantly more
than corporations (_=4.54), p=.008. In addition, non-profits (_=5.63) use
informative strategies significantly more than corporations (_=4.54),
p=.002, and educational institutions (_=4.70), p=.042.
Similarly, the results of the ANOVA indicated that 5.6% of the variance in
use of the facilitative strategy is explained by organization type,
F(7,295)=2.479, p=.017, partial _2=.056. A Levene's test for homogeneity of
variance was significant (p=.003); so multiple comparisons were made using
the LSD procedure. Results indicated that organizations devoted to health
and welfare (_=6.07) use facilitative strategies significantly more than
public relations firms (_=4.34, p=.005), corporations (_=3.94, p=.001),
government agencies (_=4.08, p=.003), associations (_=4.17, p=.022),
educational institutions (_=3.69, p=.001), and non-profit organizations
(_=4.64, p=.029).
Frequency of strategy use
A repeated measures ANOVA was performed to test H1. The within-subjects
factor was strategy type with four levels and the dependent variable was
frequency of use. Multivariate tests of within-subjects effects revealed
statistically significant differences in frequency of use across the four
strategies, Wilks' _=.834, F(3, 265)=17.64, p=.000, multivariate _2=.166.
The eta-squared score indicates that strategy type accounts for
approximately 16.6% of the variance in frequency of use measures. The mean
and standard deviation scores for frequency of strategy use are shown in
Table 4. The results indicate that the persuasive strategy is the most
frequently used strategy, followed by the informative, facilitative, and
cooperative problem solving strategies.
Paired t tests using the Bonferroni procedure were conducted for follow-up
pairwise comparisons to determine specific differences in frequency of use
across the four strategies. Paired t tests were considered more appropriate
than polynomial contrasts as follow-up tests because contrasts "should be
conducted only if the levels of the within-subjects factor represent values
along a qualitative dimension" (Greene et al., 2000, p. 212). The
Bonferroni procedure was used to control for Type 1 error across multiple
pairwise tests.
Results of the pairwise comparisons are shown in Table 5 and indicate the
following: 1) Informative strategies are used significantly more often than
facilitative and cooperative problem solving strategies; 2) Facilitative
strategies are used significantly less often than informative and
persuasive strategies; 3) Persuasive strategies are used significantly more
often than facilitative and cooperative problem solving strategies; and 4)
Cooperative problem solving strategies are used significantly less often
than informative and persuasive strategies.
Attributes of publics
Prior to testing hypotheses related to attributes of publics, Cronbach's
alpha was used to assess the internal consistency of the multiple-item goal
compatibility index. Since goal compatibility was measured separately for
the four public relations strategies, item analysis was conducted
separately for each strategy. The alpha scores for the four three-item
indices were then averaged to compute an overall reliability score for the
goal compatibility index. According to Wimmer and Dominick (2001), a
commonly held standard for reliability alphas is .75 of higher. The average
alpha coefficient was .82, indicating the measures were reliable.
Therefore, the three goal compatibility items for each of the four
strategies were summed to create a single goal compatibility measure for
each strategy.
To test H2, a doubly multivariate repeated measures ANOVA was conducted.
Strategy type was the within-subjects factor with four levels, and
attributes of publics served as dependent variables entered as measures. A
multivariate test of within-subjects effects indicated a significant
strategy type effect, Wilks' _=.420, F(42,98)=3.219, p=.000, multivariate
_2=.580. Specifically, strategy type accounted for 58% of the variance in
attributes of publics across strategies. The mean and standard deviation
scores for attributes of publics across strategies are provided in Table 6.
All mean scores are based on 140 responses.
Alternative univariate tests were performed to determine the effect of
individual attributes of publics on strategy use. Greenhouse-Geisser
Epsilon was used to adjust for violations of the sphericity assumption.
Results are shown in Table 7. The measure of external problem recognition
produced the largest univariate effect size, _2=.114. Goal compatibility
and external involvement produced the smallest effect sizes.
To test P2.1-2.4, multiple pairwise comparisons were conducted to examine
differences in attributes of publics across strategies. Paired t tests were
conducted using the Bonferroni procedure. Results are shown in Table 8.
Only items that produced significance are shown. Significant p-values are
indicated in bold. The results indicate that when informative strategies
are used, the public is perceived as: 1) More likely to recognize the
existence of a problem than when facilitative and persuasive strategies are
used; 2) More likely to think the problem is serious than when facilitative
strategies are used; 3) Less likely to be involved in the situation,
personally affected by the situation, and have strong opinions about the
situation than when cooperative problem solving strategies are used; 4)
More likely to be unable to solve the problem than when facilitative
strategies are used; 5) More likely to actively seek information about the
situation than when persuasive strategies are used; 6) More likely to seek
information from the organization than when facilitative and persuasive
strategies are used; and 7) More likely to consume information, but not
seek it out, than when cooperative problem solving strategies are used.
When facilitative strategies are used, the public is perceived as: 1) More
likely to have goal compatibility than when persuasive strategies are used;
2) Less likely to recognize the existence of a problem than when
informative and cooperative problem solving strategies are used; 3) Less
likely to see the situation as serious than when all other strategies are
used; 4) Less likely to be involved in the situation, personally affected
by the situation, and have strong opinions about the situation than when
cooperative problem solving strategies are used; 5) Less likely to have
strong opinions about the situation than when persuasive strategies are
used; 6) Less likely to be unable to solve the problem than when
informative and cooperative problem solving strategies are used; 7) Less
likely to actively seek information about the situation than when
cooperative problem solving strategies are used; 8) Less likely to seek
information from the organization than when informative and cooperative
problem solving strategies are used; and 9) More likely to consume
information, but not seek it out, than when cooperative problem solving
strategies are used.
When persuasive strategies are used, the public is perceived as: 1) Less
likely to have goal compatibility than when facilitative strategies are
used; 2) Less likely to recognize the existence of a problem than when
informative and cooperative problem solving strategies are used; 3) More
likely to think the situation is serious than when facilitative strategies
are used, but less likely to think the situation is serious than when
cooperative problem solving strategies are used; 4) Less likely to be
involved in the situation, personally affected by the situation, and have
strong opinions about the situation than when cooperative problem solving
strategies are used; 5) More likely to have strong opinions about the
situation than when the facilitative strategy is used; 6) Less likely to be
unable to solve the problem than when cooperative problem solving
strategies are used; 7) More likely to have constraints that limit its
ability to make a difference in the situation than when facilitative
strategies are used; 8) Less likely to actively seek information than when
informative and cooperative problem solving strategies are used; 9) Less
likely to seek information from the organization than when informative and
cooperative problem solving strategies are used; and 10) More likely to
consume information, but not seek it out, than when cooperative problem
solving strategies are used.
When cooperative problem solving strategies are used, the public is
perceived as: 1) More likely to recognize the existence of a problem than
when facilitative and persuasive strategies are used; 2) More likely to see
the situation as serious than when facilitative and persuasive strategies
are used; 3) More likely to be involved in the situation, personally
affected by the situation, and have strong opinions about the situation
than when all of the other strategies are used; 4) More likely to be unable
to solve the problem than when facilitative and persuasive strategies are
used; 5) More likely to actively seek information than when facilitative
and persuasive strategies are used; 6) More likely to seek information from
the organization than when facilitative and persuasive strategies are used;
and 7) Less likely to consume information, but not seek it out, than when
all of the other strategies are used.
Public relations strategy effectiveness
Prior to testing H3, Cronbach's alpha was used to assess the internal
consistency of the multiple-item effectiveness index. Since effectiveness
was measured separately for each of the strategies, item analysis was
conducted separately for each strategy. The average alpha coefficient was
.90, indicating that the items measuring strategy effectiveness were
reliable; therefore, the six effectiveness items were summed to create a
single effectiveness measure for each strategy.
Multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to test H3. For each of
the four strategies, forward stepwise regression analysis was used to
determine the attributes of publics most relevant to prediction of strategy
effectiveness. The tolerance level was 0.0001 and the entry criterion was
the probability of F<.050. In the analysis for each strategy, attributes of
publics were entered as random-effects unordered independent variables.
Strategy effectiveness was the criterion variable. Effect size was
estimated using adjusted R2 to control for the large number of independent
variables in the model. Standardized regression coefficients were assessed
to determine the contribution of individual attributes of publics to
prediction of strategy effectiveness.
The results of the regression analysis for the informative strategy
revealed that three independent variables were significant positive
predictors of strategy effectiveness within the regression equation.
Specifically, the measure of goal compatibility, the internal measure of
problem recognition, and one external measure of involvement accounted for
approximately 33% of the unique variance in effectiveness for the
informative strategy, R=.580, R2=.336, Adj. R2=.328, F(3,248)=41.910,
p=.000. The regression model for informative strategy effectiveness is
presented in Table 9.
The results of the regression analysis for the facilitative strategy
revealed that five independent variables were significant predictors of
strategy effectiveness within the regression equation. Specifically,
measures of goal compatibility, internal problem recognition, external
involvement, information processing, and external problem recognition
accounted for approximately 40% of the unique variance in effectiveness for
the facilitative strategy, R=.641, R2=.411, Adj. R2=.398, F(5,215)=30.046,
p=.000. The regression model for facilitative strategy effectiveness is
presented in Table 10.
The results of the regression analysis for the persuasive strategy revealed
that five independent variables were significant predictors of strategy
effectiveness within the regression equation. Specifically, measures of
goal compatibility, internal problem recognition, information processing,
external involvement, and external constraint recognition accounted for
approximately 42% of the unique variance in effectiveness for the
persuasive strategy, R=.657, R2=.432, Adj. R2=.421, F(5,263)=40.042,
p=.000. The regression model for persuasive strategy effectiveness is
presented in Table 11.
The results of the regression analysis for the cooperative problem solving
strategy revealed that four independent variables were significant positive
predictors of strategy effectiveness within the regression equation.
Specifically, measures of goal compatibility, external involvement,
internal problem recognition, and information processing accounted for
approximately 52% of the unique variance in effectiveness for the
cooperative problem solving strategy, R=.728, R2=.529, Adj. R2=.521,
F(4,228)=64.140, p=.000. The regression model for cooperative problem
solving strategy effectiveness is presented in Table 12.
Goal Compatibility
For each strategy in the repeated measures design, bivariate correlation
analysis using Pearson's product moment correlation coefficient was
conducted to determine the relationship of goal compatibility to problem
recognition, constraint recognition, and involvement. The results are shown
in Table 13. Significant correlations are indicated in bold.
Multiple linear regression analysis was used to examine the influence of
goal compatibility on the information seeking and information processing
behavior of publics. Specifically, the situational theory of publics was
tested with the addition of the goal compatibility measure. Two forward
stepwise regression analyses were conducted for each strategy. In the first
analysis, items measuring problem recognition, constraint recognition,
involvement, and goal compatibility were entered into the regression
equation as random-effects unordered predictor variables. The two items
measuring information seeking behavior were combined into a single
information seeking measure, which served as the criterion variable. In the
second analysis, the same predictor variables were entered into the
equation, but the information processing item, "The members of the public
consumed information given to them, but they did not actively seek it out,"
was entered as the criterion variable.
The correlations for attributes of publics and information seeking behavior
are provided in Table 14. Tables 15-18 show the regression models for
information seeking for each of the strategies. The correlations for
attributes of publics and information processing behavior are provided in
Table 19. Tables 20-23 show the regression models for information
processing for each of the strategies.
Discussion
H1 stated that, in the implementation of public relations campaigns,
informative and persuasive strategies are used more frequently than
facilitative and cooperative problem solving strategies. The results of
this study support this hypothesis. The finding that persuasive strategies
are used most frequently in the implementation of public relations
campaigns is consistent with findings of Page and Hazleton's (1999) study.
The finding that gender and organization type influence public relations
strategy use in organizations is particularly interesting. Specifically,
results indicate that female practitioners use facilitative strategies
significantly more often than their male counterparts. This is consistent
with a growing literature that suggests women practitioners value
cooperation, collaboration, and relationship building, and have a
"propensity for fostering interdependence and mutuality" (Hon, L. A.
Grunig, & Dozier, 1992, p. 430). Facilitative strategies focus on offering
assistance, providing resources, and helping publics achieve predisposed
objectives. The idea that women are more likely to initiate communication
strategies characterized by 'giving' and 'helping' is supported by feminist
research in public relations.
In addition, organizations devoted to health care were found to use
facilitative strategies significantly more often than other types of
organizations. According to Hetherington, Ekachai, and Parkinson (2001),
the health care industry has moved from a "medical model" emphasizing
treatment to a "wellness model" emphasizing prevention (p. 573). The
authors stated that, "unlike the medical model, which places the physician
at the center of business, the wellness model places the patient at the
center" (p. 575). It is likely that health care organizations employ
facilitative strategies to help patients prevent illness by providing
resources to empower them.
H2 predicted that perceived attributes of publics influence public
relations strategy use in organizations. The results support this
hypothesis. Specifically, strategy type accounted for 58% of the variance
in attributes of publics across strategies, Wilks' _=.420, F(42,98)=3.219,
p=.000, multivariate _2=.580. The measure of external problem recognition,
"The public recognized the existence of a problem," produced the largest
univariate effect size, _2=.114. The other measure of external problem
recognition, "The public thought the situation was serious," also produced
a large univariate effect size in comparison to the other items, _2=.087.
This suggests that practitioners' perceptions of problem recognition in
publics have the strongest influence on strategy use. The measure of
internal constraint recognition, "The public did not understand the problem
enough to do anything about it," also produced a large univariate effect
size in relation to the other items, _2=.092. Goal compatibility and
external involvement produced the smallest effect sizes.
These results are fairly consistent with the results of Page and Hazleton's
study, although they found that strategy type accounted for 72.6% of the
variance in attributes of publics across strategies. The difference in
explained variance between the two studies is likely due to the difference
in number of attributes tested. Page and Hazleton examined nine items
related to attributes of publics and this study examined 14 attribute
measures.
P2.1 predicted that when informative strategies are used, practitioners
perceive the public as having low problem recognition and low goal
compatibility. The results of this study do not support this proposition.
Specifically, the results indicate that practitioners perceive greater
problem recognition in publics when informative strategies are used than
when facilitative and persuasive strategies are used. Although the means
for both external problem recognition measures were lower for the
informative strategy than the cooperative problem solving strategy, they
were not significantly lower.
In addition, the mean for goal compatibility when the informative strategy
was used did not differ significantly from the mean for goal compatibility
when the other strategies were used. Although it was lower than the mean
for the facilitative strategy, it was higher than the mean for the
persuasive and cooperative problem solving strategies. Thus, no conclusions
can be drawn about the influence of perceived goal compatibility on use of
informative strategies.
P2.2 stated that when facilitative strategies are used, practitioners
perceive the public as having moderate problem recognition, high goal
compatibility, high involvement, and information processing behavior. The
results provide mixed support for the proposition. Specifically, the
results indicate that practitioners perceive goal compatibility as being
higher in publics when facilitative strategies are used than when
persuasive strategies are used. In addition, the mean for the goal
compatibility measure was higher for the facilitative strategy than for the
informative and cooperative problem solving strategies, although it was not
significantly higher. Nevertheless, support is indicated for the prediction
that practitioners perceive publics as having high goal compatibility when
facilitative strategies are used.
In addition, results indicate that, generally, publics are perceived as
having low problem recognition, low involvement, and information processing
behavior when facilitative strategies are used. The proposition is
supported by the finding of high goal compatibility and information
processing behavior; however, the finding of low problem recognition and
low involvement is contrary to the proposition. The results also suggest
that the public is perceived as having low constraint recognition when
facilitative strategies are used. The means for both external constraint
recognition measures were lower for the facilitative strategy than for all
of the other strategies. This result seems counterintuitive since
facilitative strategies provide resources to publics that allow them to act
in ways they are already predisposed to act. Lack of resources would seem
to be a constraint. However, it is possible that when constraint
recognition is low, facilitative strategies are used because there is less
resistance from members of the public, making it easier to facilitate action.
P2.3 stated that when persuasive strategies are used, practitioners
perceive the public as having low problem recognition, low goal
compatibility, low involvement, and information seeking behavior. Again,
the results provide mixed support for the proposition. Findings suggest
that when persuasive strategies are used, publics are perceived as having
low goal compatibility. In fact, the mean for the goal compatibility
measure was lower for the persuasive strategy than for all of the other
strategies. Results also indicate that, generally, publics are perceived as
having low problem recognition, mixed levels of involvement, less
information seeking behavior, and more information processing behavior when
persuasive strategies are used. The finding of low goal compatibility and
low problem recognition supports the proposition; however, the finding of
less information seeking and more information processing, as well as the
mixed result for involvement, is contrary to the proposition.
The results of this study also provide mixed support for perceived
constraint recognition in publics when persuasive strategies are used.
Specifically, publics are perceived as having more constraints when
persuasive strategies are used than when facilitative strategies are used,
but more ability to solve the problem than when cooperative problem solving
strategies are used.
P2.4 predicted that when cooperative problem-solving strategies are used,
practitioners perceive the public as having high problem recognition, high
goal compatibility, and information seeking behavior. The results indicate
mixed support for this proposition. Specifically, the results suggest that
publics are generally perceived as having high problem recognition when
cooperative problem solving strategies are used. The means for the two
external problem recognition measures were higher for the cooperative
problem solving strategy than for all of the other strategies. Publics also
are perceived as actively seeking information when cooperative problem
solving strategies are used. The means for both information seeking
measures were higher for this strategy than for the other strategies. No
support for the prediction of high goal compatibility was found. Results
indicated that the mean for goal compatibility was higher for the
cooperative problem solving strategy than for the persuasive strategy, but
it was lower than the means for informative and facilitative strategies.
However, these differences were not significant.
In addition, the results provide support for the conclusion that publics
are perceived as more involved when the cooperative problem solving
strategy is used than when all of the other strategies are used. All three
measures of involvement produced significantly higher mean scores for the
cooperative problem solving strategy than for the other strategies.
Similarly, the results indicate that publics are perceived as having high
constraint recognition when cooperative problem solving strategies are
used. Both measures of external constraint recognition produced high mean
scores for this strategy.
Public relations strategy effectiveness
H3 posited that perceived attributes of publics are predictors of public
relations strategy effectiveness. The results of multiple regression
analysis support this hypothesis. Specifically, the results indicate that
perceived attributes of publics account for a large percentage of the
variance in strategy effectiveness for all of the public relations
strategies examined in this study.
P3.1 stated that informative strategy effectiveness is predicted by
perceived goal compatibility and problem recognition. The results of the
regression analysis support this proposition. Specifically, measures of
goal compatibility, internal problem recognition, and external involvement
accounted for approximately 33% of the unique variance in informative
strategy effectiveness, R=.580, R2=.336, Adj. R2=.328, F(3,248)=41.910,
p=.000. The results of the regression analysis indicate that goal
compatibility is the strongest predictor of informative strategy
effectiveness, followed by internal problem recognition and external
involvement. These measures function as positive predictors of informative
strategy effectiveness. The results suggest that informative strategies are
most effective when the target public is perceived as: (1) having goal
compatibility, (2) wanting to understand the situation better, and (3)
being personally affected by the situation.
P3.2 stated that facilitative strategy effectiveness is predicted by
perceived goal compatibility and information processing behavior. The
results of the regression analysis support this proposition. Specifically,
measures of goal compatibility, internal problem recognition, external
involvement, information processing, and external problem recognition
accounted for approximately 40% of the unique variance in facilitative
strategy effectiveness, R=.641, R2=.411, Adj. R2=.398, F(5,215)=30.046,
p=.000. All of the measures function as positive predictors of facilitative
strategy effectiveness except external problem recognition. In addition,
goal compatibility was found to be the strongest predictor of facilitative
strategy effectiveness. The results suggest that facilitative strategies
are most effective when the public is perceived as: (1) having goal
compatibility, (2) wanting to understand the situation better, (3) being
involved in the situation, (4) consuming information but not seeking it
out, and (5) not recognizing the existence of a problem.
P3.3 stated that persuasive strategy effectiveness is predicted by
perceived goal compatibility. The results of the regression analysis
support this proposition. Specifically, measures of goal compatibility,
internal problem recognition, information processing, external involvement,
and external constraint recognition accounted for approximately 42% of the
unique variance in persuasive strategy effectiveness, R=.657, R2=.432, Adj.
R2=.421, F(5,263)=40.042, p=.000. All of the measures function as positive
predictors of facilitative strategy effectiveness except external
constraint recognition. Again, goal compatibility was found to be the
strongest predictor of persuasive strategy effectiveness. These results
suggest that persuasive strategies are most effective when the public is
perceived as: (1) having goal compatibility, (2) wanting to understand the
situation better, (3) consuming information but not seeking it out, (4)
being involved in the situation, and (5) not having constraints that limit
its ability to make a difference in the situation.
P3.4 stated that cooperative problem solving strategy effectiveness is
predicted by perceived goal compatibility and problem recognition. The
results of the regression analysis support this proposition. Specifically,
measures of goal compatibility, external involvement, internal problem
recognition, and information processing accounted for approximately 52% of
the unique variance in effectiveness for the cooperative problem solving
strategy, R=.728, R2=.529, Adj. R2=.521, F(4,228)=64.140, p=.000. These
measures function as positive predictors of effectiveness for the
cooperative problem solving strategy, and goal compatibility was found to
be the strongest predictor of effectiveness. These results suggest that
cooperative problem solving strategies are most effective when the public
is perceived as: (1) having goal compatibility, (2) being involved in the
situation, (3) wanting to understand the situation better, and (4)
consuming information.
The results of the analysis of public relations strategy effectiveness are
consistent with results reported by Page and Hazleton (1999). However, the
findings of the present study add new insight into the attributes of
publics most important to prediction of effectiveness for each of the four
strategies.
RQ1 asked if goal compatibility is related to problem recognition,
constraint recognition, and involvement in publics. The results of
correlation analysis revealed significant relationships between goal
compatibility and all of the independent variables in the situational
theory. The most consistent relationship was found between goal
compatibility and the measure of internal problem recognition, "The members
of the public seemed like they wanted to understand the situation better."
The results indicated strong positive correlations between goal
compatibility and this measure across all four public relations strategies.
The weakest and most unstable relationship was found between goal
compatibility and constraint recognition. Generally, the correlations
between goal compatibility and the measures of internal and external
constraint recognition were not significant, and directional inconsistency
was found across strategies. Similar results were found between the
measures of involvement and goal compatibility, although the relationships
were somewhat more consistent than those produced by the constraint
recognition items. These results make it difficult to draw any conclusions
about the relationship between goal compatibility and the independent
variables in the situational theory. Clearly, further research is needed to
understand how goal compatibility is related to problem recognition,
constraint recognition, and involvement.
RQ2 asked if goal compatibility influences the information seeking and
information processing behavior of publics. To examine this question, the
situational theory was tested across strategies, with the addition of goal
compatibility as a predictor variable. Although significant positive
correlations were found between goal compatibility and information seeking
across strategies, goal compatibility was not a predictor of information
seeking behavior. Goal compatibility was negatively correlated with
information processing, but the correlation was not significant and goal
compatibility did not function as a predictor of information processing
behavior.
Despite these results, the analysis did find support for the predictions of
the situational theory. Specifically, measures of problem recognition,
constraint recognition, and involvement were found to be significant
predictors of information seeking and information processing behavior
across strategies. The strongest support for the theory was found in tests
of information seeking for the informative strategy. Internal and external
problem recognition and internal and external involvement were found to be
positive predictors of information seeking, and the Beta weights were
large. Internal constraint recognition was found to be a negative predictor
of information seeking behavior, although the Beta weight was not as large
for this variable.
Similar results were found for the other three strategies; however, the
constraint recognition measures performed inconsistently. Specifically, the
measure of internal constraint recognition, "The public did not understand
the situation enough to do anything about it," was a significant negative
predictor of information seeking for the informative and facilitative
strategies, but it did not predict information seeking for the persuasive
and cooperative problem solving strategies. In fact, none of the measures
of constraint recognition predicted information seeking for the persuasive
strategy. Furthermore, the measure of external constraint recognition, "The
public could not solve the problem," was a positive predictor of
information seeking for the cooperative problem solving strategy. This
suggests that when cooperative problem solving strategies are used, the
public is perceived as unable to solve a problem and is actively
communicating about it. This seems consistent with the definition of the
cooperative problem solving strategy, which attempts to jointly define
problems and solutions to problems through an open exchange of information.
Support was also found for the situational theory's predictions regarding
information processing behavior. Specifically, the measure of internal
constraint recognition was found to be a significant positive predictor of
information processing across all of the strategies. This implies that, as
constraint recognition in publics increased, publics are more likely to
process information given to them but not seek it, regardless of the
communication strategy used by the organization.
In addition, measures of involvement were found to be negative predictors
of information processing behavior for the informative and facilitative
strategies, although external involvement was a predictor for the
informative strategy and internal involvement was a predictor for the
facilitative strategy. This suggests that, for informative and facilitative
strategies, publics perceived as uninvolved in a situation are also
perceived as consuming information, but not actively seeking it.
Measures of problem recognition were found to be negative predictors of
information processing behavior for the persuasive and cooperative problem
solving strategies. The measure of external problem recognition, "The
public recognized the existence of a problem," produced large negative Beta
weights for both of these strategies. The internal measure of problem
recognition, "The members of the public seemed like they wanted to
understand the situation better," also produced a large negative Beta
weight for the persuasive strategy. This suggests that, for persuasive and
cooperative problem solving strategies, publics perceived as not
recognizing a problem are also perceived as consuming information, but not
actively seeking it.
These findings support the situational theory of publics and provide new
information about the internal and external components of the independent
variables. Furthermore, the fact that the predictions of the situational
theory held despite indirect measurement of the independent and dependent
variables lends validity to the operationalization of the variables, as
well as the results of this study. It also methodologically extends the theory.
Conclusions
This study posits the need for a positive theory of public relations
strategy use and effectiveness in organization. Specifically, it asserts
the need for a conceptualization of public relations behavior in
organizations that links the message and receiver variables inherent in the
public relations process. This research has attempted to contribute to the
development of such a theory by examining how attributes of publics
influence public relations strategy use in organizations and the
effectiveness of these strategies in achieving organizational goals.
The findings of this study support the conclusion that public relations
strategy use and effectiveness in organizations is influenced by attributes
of publics. In addition, the results provide new information about the
attributes of publics most important to use and effectiveness of each of
the four strategies examined in this study. Thus, it is necessary to modify
and extend the hypotheses Page and Hazleton (1999) proposed as the basis
for a positive theory of public relations strategy use and effectiveness in
organizations.
The hypotheses related to public relations strategy use reflect the
findings of the doubly multivariate repeated measures ANOVA. These
statements reflect assumptions based on comparisons of the mean scores for
attributes of publics across strategies. Since many of the comparisons in
the analysis were not significant, the following hypotheses are posited as
a basis for a positive theory that can be tested in future research:
H1: Informative strategies are used when the public is perceived as having
moderate problem recognition, moderate constraint recognition, moderate
involvement, moderate goal compatibility, and information seeking behavior.
H2: Facilitative strategies are used when the public is perceived as
having low problem recognition, low constraint recognition, low
involvement, high goal compatibility, and information processing behavior.
H3: Persuasive strategies are used when the public is perceived as having
low problem recognition, moderate constraint recognition, moderate
involvement, low goal compatibility, and information processing behavior.
H4: Cooperative problem solving strategies are used when the public is
perceived as having high problem recognition, high constraint recognition,
high involvement, high goal compatibility, and information seeking behavior.
The hypotheses related to strategy effectiveness reflect assumptions based
on the findings of multiple regression analysis. The following hypotheses
are presented as the basis of a positive theory of public relations
strategy effectiveness that can be tested in future research:
H5: When publics exhibit moderate problem recognition, moderate
involvement, and moderate goal compatibility, informative strategies will
be effective.
H6: When publics exhibit low problem recognition, low involvement, high
goal compatibility, and are not actively seeking information, facilitative
strategies will be effective.
H7: When publics exhibit low problem recognition, moderate involvement, low
constraint recognition, low goal compatibility, and are not actively
seeking information, persuasive strategies will be effective.
H8: When publics exhibit high problem recognition, high involvement, high
goal compatibility, and are actively seeking information, cooperative
problem solving strategies will be more effective.
The indirect method used to measure attributes of publics in this study may
be viewed as a limitation by some. However, this was considered appropriate
for several reasons. First, the primary focus of this study was on the
message variable in the public relations process. It examined four message
strategies commonly used by organizations to communicate with publics, and
it sought to explain variance in the use and effectiveness of each strategy
in relation to the others. Thus, it was necessary to examine the four
strategies simultaneously. However, this could only be accomplished through
indirect testing of the attributes of publics thought to contribute to
variance in strategy use and effectiveness. Although indirect measurement
of attributes of publics does not provide the "true" cognitions and
perceptions of publics, it does provide insight into the attributes of
publics important to practitioners and organizations when making strategic
communication decisions.
The significance of this study lies in its ability to contribute to public
relations theory, practice, and pedagogy. This study is significant to
public relations theory because it advances understanding of the public
relations behavior of organizations. Hazleton and Long's public relations
process model was used as the theoretical framework for this study because
it describes public relations as goal-driven strategic communication
influenced by the situational interaction of source, message, and receiver
variables. By using this model as a foundation for empirical investigation,
researchers are able to identify and study a fuller, more inclusive range
of variables thought to influence the public relations process. This study
provides further validation for the model and its accompanying taxonomy of
public relations strategies. In this way, it contributes to the theoretical
and practical advancement of public relations. In addition, the findings of
this study may inform public relations practice. Organizations need a
practical framework for the development and implementation of strategic
communication that is effective in achieving organizational goals in
specific situations. This study seeks to provide such a framework. Finally,
this study seeks to contribute to public relations pedagogy by providing an
integrative device for understanding the public relations process in
organizations and by providing an instructional framework for understanding
the types of message strategies that are most effective with different
types of publics.
The aim of this study was to provide a foundation on which to build
understanding of message and receiver variables in the public relations
process, and to advance a framework for investigating the relationship
between the two. Future research must attempt to further the development of
discipline-specific public relations theory by building on the limited
understanding achieved here.
REFERENCES
Austin, E. W., & Pinkleton, B. E. (2001). Strategic public relations
management: Planning and managing effective communication programs. Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Botan, C. H. & Hazleton, V. (1989). Public relations theory. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Botan, C. H., & Soto, F. (1998). A semiotic approach to the internal
functioning of publics: Implications for strategic communication and public
relations. Public Relations Review, 24(1), 21-44.
Clarke, P., & Kline, F. G. (1974). Mass media effects reconsidered: Some
new strategies for communication research. Communication Research, 1, 224-270.
Cline, C. G., McBride, M. H., & Miller, R. E. (1989). The theory of
psychological type congruence in public relations and persuasion. In V.
Hazleton Jr. & C. Botan (Eds.), Public relations theory (pp. 221-239).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Couper, M. P. (2000). Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches.
Public Opinion Quarterly, 64, 464-494.
Dewey, J. (1927). The public and its problems. Chicago: Swallow.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design
method (2nd ed.). NY: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Green, S. B., Salkind, N. J., & Akey, T.M. (2000). Using SPSS for Windows:
Analyzing and understanding data, (2nd ed.) Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Greene, J. O. (1990). Tactical social action: Toward some strategies for
theory. In M. J. Cody & M. L. McLaughlin (Eds.), The psychology of tactical
communication (pp. 31-47). Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters.
Grunig, J. E. (1978). Defining publics in public relations: The case of a
suburban hospital. Journalism Quarterly, 55, 109-118.
Grunig, J. E. (1979). Time budgets, level of involvement and use of the
mass media. Journalism Quarterly, 56, 248-261.
Grunig, J. E. (1989a). Publics, audiences and market segments: Models of
receivers of campaign messages. In C. T. Salmon (Ed.), Information
campaigns: managing the process of social change (pp. 197-226). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Grunig, J. E. (1989b). Sierra club study shows who become activists. Public
Relations Review, 15(3), 3-24.
Grunig, J. E. (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication
management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, J. E. (1997). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history,
recent challenges, and new research. In D. Moss, T. McManus, & D. Vercic,
Public relations research: An international perspective (pp. 3-48). Boston,
MA: International Thomson Business Press.
Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, present,
and future. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 11-30).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Grunig, J. E., & Childers, L. (1988). Reconstruction of a situational
theory of communication: Internal and external concepts as identifiers of
publics for AIDS. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for
Education in Journalism & Mass Communication, Portland, OR.
Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. S. (1992). Models of public relations and
communication. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and
communication management (pp. 285-325). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Grunig, J. E., & Repper, R. C. (1992). Strategic management, publics and
issues. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and
communication management. (pp. 159-184). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Hallahan, K. (2000a). Enhancing motivation, ability, and opportunity to
process public relations messages. Public Relations Review, 26, 463-480.
Hallahan, K. (2000b). Inactive publics: The forgotten publics in public
relations. Public Relations Review, 26, 499-512.
Hazleton, V. (1992). Toward a system theory of public relations. In H.
Avenarius & W. Ambrecht (Eds.), Ist Public Relations eine Wissenschaft?
(pp. 33-46). Berlin: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Hazleton, V. (1993). Symbolic resources: Processes in the development and
use of symbolic resources. In W. Armbrecht, H. Avenarius, & U. Zabel
(Eds.). Image und PR: Kann image Gegenstand einer Public
Relations-Wissenschaft sein? [Image and PR: Can image be a concept in
public relations as a science?] (pp. 87-100). Germany: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Hazleton, V. Jr., & Botan, C. H. (1989). The role of theory in public
relations. In C. Botan & V. Hazleton, Jr. (Eds.), Public relations theory
(pp. 3-15). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hazleton, V. Jr., & Long, L. W. (1988). Concepts for public relations
education, research, and practice: A communication point of view. Central
States Speech Journal, 39, 77-87.
Hetherington, L. T., Ekachai, D., & Parkinson, M. (2001). Public relations
in the health care industry. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public
relations (pp. 571-578). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hon, L. C., Grunig, L. A., & Dozier, D. M. (1992). Women in public
relations: Problems and opportunities. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in
public relations and communication management (pp. 419-438). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Karlberg, M. (1996). Remembering the public in public relations research:
From theoretical to operational symmetry. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 8, 263-278.
Leitch, S., & Neilson, D. (2001). Bringing publics into public relations:
New theoretical frameworks for practice. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of
public relations (pp. 127-138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Littlejohn, S. W. (1983). Theories of human communication (2nd ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
Long, L. W, & Hazleton, V. Jr. (1985). The process of public relations: A
model. Paper presented to the International Communications Association,
Honolulu, Hawaii.
Long, L. W., & Hazleton, V. Jr. (1987). Public relations: A theoretical and
practical response. Public Relations Review, 13, 3-13.
Massy, W. F., & Weitz, B. A. (1977). A normative theory of market
segmentation. In F. M. Nicosia & Y. Wind (Eds.), Behavioral models for
market analysis: Foundations for marketing action (pp. 121-144). Hinsdale,
IL: Dryden.
Moffitt, M. A. (1992). Bringing critical theory and ethical considerations
to definitions of a "public." Public Relations Review, 18(1), 17-29.
Page, K. G. (2000a, March). An exploratory analysis of goal compatibility
between organizations and publics. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the Southern States Communication Association.
Page, K. G. (2000b, June). Prioritizing p7jublics: Exploring goal
compatibility between organizations and publics. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Acapulco,
Mexico.
Page, K. G., & Hazleton, V. (1999, May). An empirical analysis of factors
influencing public relation strategy usage and effectiveness. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication
Association, San Francisco, CA.
Salmon, C. T. (1986). Perspectives on involvement in consumer and
communication research. In B. Dervin & M. J. Voigt (Eds.), Progress in
communication sciences (Vol. 7, pp. 243- 269). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Scott, J. C. III, & O'Hair, D. (1989). Expanding psychographic concepts in
public relations: The composite audience profile. In V. Hazleton, Jr. & C.
Botan (Eds.), Public relations theory (pp. 193-202). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Springston, J. K., & Keyton, J. (2001). Public relations field dynamics. In
R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 115-126). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Vasquez, G. M. (1993). A homo narrans paradigm for public relations:
Combining Bormann's Symbolic Convergence Theory and Grunig's Situational
Theory of Publics. Journal of Public Relations Research, 5, 201-216.
Weick, K. E. (1979). The social psychology of organizing (2nd ed.).
Reading, MA: Addison.
Wilcox, D. L., Ault, P. H., Agee, W. K., & Cameron, G. T. (2000). Public
relations strategies and tactics (6th ed.). NY: Longman.
Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2000). Mass media research: An
introduction. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Zaltman, G., & Duncan, R. (1977). Strategies for planned change. NY: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Figure 1. Public Relations Process Model.
Reproduced with permission of the publisher. Hazleton, V. & Long, L.
(1988). Concepts for public relations education, research, and practice: A
communication point of view. Central States Communication Journal, 39(2),
83-86.
Physical
Psychological
Sociological
Content
graphic-visual
oral-aural
tactile
olfactory
taste
A. Reference
denotative
connotative
B. Style
logical
interesting
emotional
assertive
face-preserving
concise
ambiguous
factual
rhetorical visions
fantasy themes
symbolic cues
fantasy types
sagas
Structure
intensity
contrast
special order
chronological order
A. Organic
spatial
chronological
types
B. Psychological
cause/effect
problem/solving
climax
anti-climax
A. Distribution
network size
network shape
symmetry
relationship
B. Frequency
activity
topic/symbol
Function
A. Attributions to Symbols
repeat
contradict
substitute
complement
accent
verify
B. Attributions to Communicators
relationship
status
affect
Facilitate
Inform
Coerce
Bargain
Solve problems
Persuade
A. Task Performance
problem identification
solution identification
behavior regulation
information exchange
B. Group Maintenance
socialization
consciousness raising
conflict resolution leadership
Figure 2. Matrix for the Analysis of Public Relations Symbols.
Reproduced with permission of the author. (V. Hazleton, 1988).
Table 1: Operationalization of public relations strategies
Strategy
Type
Operationalization
Informative
Strategy
An informative/education strategy is based on the presentation of unbiased
facts. Informative messages do not draw conclusions but presume that the
target public will infer appropriate conclusions from accurate data.
Informative messages may suggest a variety of alternative solutions to
problems and are characterized by the use of neutral language.
Facilitative
Strategy
A facilitative strategy is accomplished by making resources available to
members of a public that allow them to act in ways that they are already
predisposed to act. Resources may be tangible artifacts, such as tools or
money (i.e. a postage paid return envelope), or they may be directions that
tell someone how to accomplish a particular action (i.e. a directional
billboard).
Persuasive
Strategy
Persuasive strategies are characterized by appeals to a public's values or
emotions. These messages may include a selective presentation of
information and use language that is not neutral. They reflect the
importance of the issue to the organization and the involvement of the
organization in the situation. Persuasive messages provide a call for
action, either directly or indirectly.
Cooperative
Problem
Solving
Strategy
Cooperative problem solving messages reflect a willingness to jointly
define problems and solutions to problems. These messages are characterized
by an open exchange of information to establish common goals and to share
responsibilities about the situation. These messages create a sense of
interdependence between an organization and its public and use inclusive
language, such as 'we.'
Table 2: Survey response statistics
Sample 1
Direct Mail
Sample 1
Online
Sample 2
Online
Total
Total sample
255
895
1,703
Undeliverable
6
360
755
1,121
Ineligible
8
26
45
79
Valid sample
241
509
903
1,653
Refusals
6
46
64
116
Responses
54
128
221
403
Auto replies
n/a
26
58
84
Other replies
n/a
63
128
191
Noncontacts
181
335
618
1,134
Response rate
22.4%
25.1%
24.5%
24.4%
Refusal rate
2.5%
9.0%
7.1%
7.0%
Completion rate
21.2%
14.3%
13.0%
14.1%
Noncontact rate
75.1%
65.8%
68.4%
68.6%
Table 3: Categorical demographic variables across modes, samples, and study
Variable
Sample 1
Direct Mail
Sample 1
Online
Sample 2
Online
Study Total
Gender
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Female
Male
29
25
53.7
46.3
78
48
61.9
38.1
119
96
55.3
44.7
226
169
57.2
42.8
Accreditation Status
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Yes
No
22
31
41.5
58.5
50
74
40.3
59.7
74
144
33.9
66.1
146
249
37.0
63.0
Primary Role
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Entry Level/Technician
Specialist/Assistant/Junior
Supervisory/Director/Manager
Senior Manager
Other
0
6
22
18
8
0.0
11.1
40.7
33.3
14.8
1
13
66
38
9
0.8
10.2
52.0
29.9
7.1
1
31
106
70
10
0.5
14.2
48.6
32.1
4.6
2
50
194
126
27
0.5
12.5
48.6
31.6
6.8
Salary Range ($)
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
15,000-25,000
25,001-39,000
39,001-55,000
55,001-76,000
76,001 and above
Other
1
4
13
9
27
0
1.9
7.4
24.1
16.7
50.0
0.0
2
20
33
28
36
2
1.7
16.5
27.3
23.1
29.8
1.7
2
23
57
49
74
10
0.9
10.7
26.5
22.8
34.4
4.7
5
47
103
86
137
12
1.3
12.1
26.4
22.1
35.1
3.1
Education Level
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
High School Diploma
Incomplete Undergraduate
Undergraduate Degree
Other Graduate Degree
MBA
0
1
33
17
3
0.0
1.9
61.1
31.5
5.6
0
1
77
43
6
0.0
0.8
60.6
33.9
4.7
0
4
126
76
12
0.0
1.8
57.8
34.9
5.5
0
6
236
136
21
0.0
1.5
59.1
34.1
5.3
Organization Type
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
PR Firm/Advertising Agency
Corporation
Government
Association
Educational Institution
Not-for-profit
Health and Welfare
Other
11
19
6
3
1
7
5
2
20.4
35.2
11.1
5.6
1.9
13.0
9.3
3.7
33
37
5
3
13
27
3
6
26.0
29.1
3.9
2.4
10.2
21.3
2.4
4.7
52
50
34
11
27
21
12
13
23.6
22.7
15.5
5.0
12.3
9.5
5.5
5.9
96
106
45
17
41
55
20
21
23.9
26.4
11.2
4.2
10.2
13.7
5.0
5.2
Table 4: Mean and standard deviation for frequency of strategy use
Strategy Type
N
Mean
SD
Informative
268
4.98
1.810
Facilitative
268
4.26
2.129
Persuasive
268
5.02
2.012
Cooperative problem solving
268
4.16
2.160
Table 5: Pairwise comparisons for frequency of use across strategies
Strategy (I)
Strategy (J)
Mean difference (I-J)*
p-value
Informative
Facilitative
.720
.000
Persuasive
-.037
1.000
Cooperative problem solving
.821
.000
Facilitative
Informative
-.720
.000
Persuasive
-.757
.000
Cooperative problem solving
.101
1.000
Persuasive
Informative
.037
1.000
Facilitative
.757
.000
Cooperative problem solving
.858
.000
Cooperative problem solving
Informative
-.821
.000
Facilitative
-.101
1.000
Persuasive
-.858
.000
* Based on estimated marginal means. Bonferroni adjustment for multiple
pairwise comparisons.
Table 6: Mean and standard deviation for attributes of publics across
strategies
Attributes of Publics
Strategy Type
Mean
SD
Goal Compatibility
(3 items combined)
Informative
14.25
3.935
Facilitative
14.74
3.927
Persuasive
13.39
4.326
Cooperative problem solving
13.84
4.634
ExPR1: The public recognized the existence of a problem.
Informative
5.24
1.515
Facilitative
4.43
1.597
Persuasive
4.75
1.560
Cooperative problem solving
5.50
1.267
ExPR2: The public thought the situation was serious.
Informative
5.09
1.603
Facilitative
4.49
1.571
Persuasive
4.95
1.426
Cooperative problem solving
5.44
1.310
InPR: The members of the public seemed like they wanted to understand the
situation better.
Informative
5.41
1.162
Facilitative
5.31
1.320
Persuasive
5.28
1.194
Cooperative problem solving
5.52
1.238
ExCR1: The public could not solve the problem.
Informative
4.77
1.672
Facilitative
4.34
1.661
Persuasive
4.33
1.660
Cooperative problem solving
4.83
1.582
ExCR2: There were constraints that limited the public's ability to make a
difference in the situation.
Informative
4.40
1.700
Facilitative
4.20
1.504
Persuasive
4.69
1.560
Cooperative problem solving
4.63
1.637
InCR: The public did not understand the situation enough to do anything
about it.
Informative
3.68
1.579
Facilitative
3.45
1.490
Persuasive
3.69
1.574
Cooperative problem solving
3.59
1.596
ExIN1: The public was highly involved in the situation.
Informative
4.81
1.493
Facilitative
4.65
1.613
Persuasive
4.89
1.443
Cooperative problem solving
5.44
1.385
ExIN2: The members of the public were personally affected by the situation.
Informative
5.63
1.127
Facilitative
5.54
1.327
Persuasive
5.54
1.283
Cooperative problem solving
5.96
0.847
InIN: The members of the public had strong opinions about the situation.
Informative
4.90
1.624
Facilitative
4.69
1.667
Persuasive
5.15
1.388
Cooperative problem solving
5.64
1.247
Information Seeking 1: The public was actively seeking information about
the situation.
Informative
4.77
1.602
Facilitative
4.44
1.624
Persuasive
4.23
1.624
Cooperative problem solving
5.06
1.608
Table 6_continued
Attributes of Publics
Strategy Type
Mean
SD
Information Seeking 2: Members of the public sought information from my
organization about the problem.
Informative
5.22
1.445
Facilitative
4.59
1.627
Persuasive
4.69
1.591
Cooperative problem solving
5.39
1.428
Information Processing 1: The members of the public consumed information
given to them, but they did not actively seek it out.
Informative
4.47
1.510
Facilitative
4.56
1.597
Persuasive
4.71
1.629
Cooperative problem solving
3.94
1.747
Information Processing 2: The public paid attention to messages from my
organization when this strategy was used.
Informative
5.59
1.045
Facilitative
5.59
0.982
Persuasive
5.72
0.975
Cooperative problem solving
5.71
0.962
Table 7: Univariate effect of attributes of publics on strategy use
Attributes of Publics
F
DF
p
_2
Goal Compatibility (3 items combined)
3.640
2.813
.015
.026
ExPR1: The public recognized the existence of a problem.
17.832
2.887
.000
.114
ExPR2: The public thought the situation was serious.
13.284
2.923
.000
.087
InPR: The members of the public seemed like they wanted to understand the
situation better.
1.608
2.952
.188
.011
ExCR1: The public could not solve the problem.
11.150
2.937
.000
.074
ExCR2: There were constraints that limited the public's ability to make a
difference in the situation.
5.287
2.801
.002
.037
InCR: The public did not understand the situation enough to do anything
about it.
14.061
2.945
.000
.092
ExIN1: The public was highly involved in the situation.
5.272
2.921
.002
.037
ExIN2: The members of the public were personally affected by the situation.
3.493
1.943
.016
.025
InIN: The members of the public had strong opinions about the situation.
1.097
2.984
.350
.008
Information Seeking 1: The public was actively seeking information about
the situation.
9.398
2.934
.000
.063
Information Seeking 2: Members of the public sought information from my
organization about the problem.
11.564
2.888
.000
.077
Information Processing 1: The members of the public consumed information
given to them, but they did not actively seek it out.
7.751
2.859
.000
.053
Information Processing 2: The public paid attention to messages from my
organization when this strategy was used.
1.135
2.864
.333
.008
Table 8: Pairwise comparisons of attributes of publics across strategies
Attributes
of Publics
Strategy (I)
Strategy (J)
Mean Diff.
p-value
Goal Compatibility
(3 items combined)
Informative
Facilitative
-.486
1.00
Persuasive
.864
.103
Cooperative problem solving
.414
1.000
Facilitative
Informative
.486
1.000
Persuasive
1.350
.016
Cooperative problem solving
.900
.279
Persuasive
Informative
-.864
.103
Facilitative
-1.350
.016
Cooperative problem solving
-.450
1.000
Cooperative problem solving
Informative
-.414
1.000
Facilitative
-.900
.279
Persuasive
.450
1.000
ExPR1:
The public recognized the existence of a problem
Informative
Facilitative
.807
.000
Persuasive
.486
.031
Cooperative problem solving
-.264
.509
Facilitative
Informative
-.807
.000
Persuasive
-.321
.419
Cooperative problem solving
-1.071
.000
Persuasive
Informative
-.486
.031
Facilitative
.321
.419
Cooperative problem solving
-.750
.000
Cooperative problem solving
Informative
.264
.509
Facilitative
1.071
.000
Persuasive
.750
.000
ExPR2:
The public thought the situation was serious.
Informative
Facilitative
.593
.002
Persuasive
.136
1.000
Cooperative problem solving
-.350
.144
Facilitative
Informative
-.593
.002
Persuasive
-.457
.026
Cooperative problem solving
-.943
.000
Persuasive
Informative
-.136
1.000
Facilitative
.457
.026
Cooperative problem solving
-.486
.003
Cooperative problem solving
Informative
.350
.144
Facilitative
.943
.000
Persuasive
.486
.003
ExIN1:
The public was highly involved in the situation
Informative
Facilitative
.157
1.000
Persuasive
-.086
1.000
Cooperative problem solving
-.636
.000
Facilitative
Informative
-.157
1.000
Persuasive
-.243
.428
Cooperative problem solving
-.793
.000
Persuasive
Informative
.086
1.000
Facilitative
.243
.428
Cooperative problem solving
-.550
.001
Cooperative problem solving
Informative
.636
.000
Facilitative
.793
.000
Persuasive
.550
.001
Table 8_continued
Attributes
of Publics
Strategy (I)
Strategy (J)
Mean Diff.
p-value
ExIN2:
The members of the public were personally affected by the situation.
Informative
Facilitative
.086
1.000
Persuasive
.086
1.000
Cooperative problem solving
-.329
.021
Facilitative
Informative
-.086
1.000
Persuasive
.000
1.000
Cooperative problem solving
-.414
.003
Persuasive
Informative
-.086
1.000
Facilitative
.000
1.000
Cooperative problem solving
-.414
.003
Cooperative problem solving
Informative
.329
.021
Facilitative
.414
.003
Persuasive
.414
.003
InIN:
The members of the public had strong opinions about the situation.
.
Informative
Facilitative
.214
1.000
Persuasive
-.250
.687
Cooperative problem solving
-.743
.000
Facilitative
Informative
-.214
1.000
Persuasive
-.464
.015
Cooperative problem solving
-.957
.000
Persuasive
Informative
.250
.687
Facilitative
.464
.015
Cooperative problem solving
-.493
.004
Cooperative problem solving
Informative
.743
.000
Facilitative
.957
.000
Persuasive
.493
.004
ExCR1:
The public could not solve the problem
Informative
Facilitative
.429
.046
Persuasive
.443
.092
Cooperative problem solving
-.057
1.000
Facilitative
Informative
-.429
.046
Persuasive
-.043
1.000
Cooperative problem solving
-.486
.009
Persuasive
Informative
-.443
.092
Facilitative
-.014
1.000
Cooperative problem solving
-.500
.023
Cooperative problem solving
Informative
.057
1.000
Facilitative
.486
.009
Persuasive
.500
.023
ExCR2:
There were constraints that limited the public's ability to make a
difference in the situation.
Informative
Facilitative
.200
1.000
Persuasive
-.286
.508
Cooperative problem solving
-.229
1.000
Facilitative
Informative
-.200
1.000
Persuasive
-.486
.012
Cooperative problem solving
-.429
.082
Persuasive
Informative
.286
.508
Facilitative
.486
.012
Cooperative problem solving
.057
1.000
Cooperative problem solving
Informative
.229
1.000
Facilitative
.429
.082
Persuasive
.057
1.000
Table 8_continued
Attributes
of Publics
Strategy (I)
Strategy (J)
Mean Diff.
p-value
Information Seeking 1:
The public was actively seeking information about the situation.
Informative
Facilitative
.329
.207
Persuasive
.543
.010
Cooperative problem solving
-.286
.546
Facilitative
Informative
-.329
.207
Persuasive
.214
1.000
Cooperative problem solving
-.614
.001
Persuasive
Informative
-.543
.010
Facilitative
-.214
1.000
Cooperative problem solving
-.829
.000
Cooperative problem solving
Informative
.286
.546
Facilitative
.614
.001
Persuasive
.829
.000
Information Seeking 2: Members of the public sought information from my
organization about the problem.
Informative
Facilitative
.636
.001
Persuasive
.529
.009
Cooperative problem solving
-.171
1.000
Facilitative
Informative
-.636
.001
Persuasive
-.107
1.000
Cooperative problem solving
-.807
.000
Persuasive
Informative
-.529
.009
Facilitative
.107
1.000
Cooperative problem solving
-.700
.001
Cooperative problem solving
Informative
.171
1.000
Facilitative
.807
.000
Persuasive
.700
.001
Information Processing 1:
The members of the public consumed information given to them, but they did
not actively seek it out.
Informative
Facilitative
-.086
1.000
Persuasive
-.236
.729
Cooperative problem solving
.536
.021
Facilitative
Informative
.086
1.000
Persuasive
-.150
1.000
Cooperative problem solving
.621
.001
Persuasive
Informative
.236
.729
Facilitative
.150
1.000
Cooperative problem solving
.771
.000
Cooperative problem solving
Informative
-.536
.021
Facilitative
-.621
.001
Cooperative problem solving
-.771
.000
Table 9: Regression model for informative strategy effectiveness
Predictor
Beta
t
p-value
Goal Compatibility
.345
6.110
.000
InPR: The members of the public seemed like they wanted to understand the
situation better.
.294
5.177
.000
ExIN2: The members of the public were personally affected by the situation.
.154
2.930
.004
Table 10: Regression model for facilitative strategy effectiveness
Predictor
Beta
t
p-value
Goal Compatibility
.353
5.899
.000
InPR: The members of the public seemed like they wanted to understand the
situation better.
.333
5.258
.000
ExIN1: The public was highly involved in the situation.
.195
3.326
.001
Information Processing: The members of the public consumed information
given to them, but they did not actively seek it.
.137
2.555
.011
ExPR1: The public recognized the existence of a problem.
-.129
-2.262
.025
Table 11: Regression model for persuasive strategy effectiveness
Predictor
Beta
t
p-value
Goal Compatibility
.431
8.057
.000
InPR: The members of the public seemed like they wanted to understand the
situation better.
.240
4.170
.000
Information Processing: The members of the public consumed information
given to them, but they did not actively seek it.
.163
3.300
.001
ExIN1: The public was highly involved in the situation.
.154
3.003
.003
ExCR2: There were constraints that limited the public's ability to make a
difference in the situation.
-.134
-2.825
.005
Table 12: Regression model for cooperative problem solving strategy
effectiveness
Predictor
Beta
t
p-value
Goal Compatibility
.480
8.735
.000
ExIN1: The public was highly involved in the situation.
.240
4.950
.000
InPR: The members of the public seemed like they wanted to understand the
situation better.
.245
4.234
.000
Information Processing: The members of the public consumed information
given to them, but they did not actively seek it.
.130
2.760
.006
Table 13: Correlations for goal compatibility and STP independent variables
Attributes of Publics
INFO
GC
FAC
GC
PERS
GC
COOP
GC
ExPR1: The public recognized the existence of a problem.
r=-.059
p=.329
r=.227
p=.000
r=.119
p=.040
r=.213
p=.001
ExPR2: The public thought the situation was serious.
r=-.047
p=.440
r=.218
p=.001
r=.063
p=.282
r=.137
p=.028
InPR: The members of the public seemed like they wanted to understand the
situation better.
r=.370
p=.000
r=.471
p=.000
r=.483
p=.000
r=.529
p=.000
ExCR1: The public could not solve the problem.
r= -.039
p=.526
r= -.021
p=.742
r= -.140
p=.016
r=.018
p=.781
ExCR2: There were constraints that limited the public's ability to make a
difference in the situation.
r=-.061
p=.318
r=.037
p=.571
r=-.165
p=.004
r=-.057
p=.362
InCR: The public did not understand the situation enough to do anything
about it.
r= -.199
p=.001
r= -.231
p=.000
r= -.143
p=.013
r= -.082
p=.188
ExIN1: The public was highly involved in the situation.
r= -.026
p=.666
r=.247
p=.000
r=.110
p=.059
r=.123
p=.050
ExIN2: The members of the public were personally affected by the situation.
r=.090
p=.138
r=.324
p=.000
r=.104
p=.071
r=.269
p=.000
InIN: The members of the public had strong opinions about the situation.
r= -.139
p=.022
r=.133
p=.039
r= -.042
p=.468
r= -.053
p=.398
Table 14: Correlations for attributes of publics and information seeking
behavior
Attributes of Publics
INFO
Info
Seeking
n=258
FAC
Info
Seeking
n=229
PERS
Info
Seeking n=280
COOP
Info
Seeking n=242
Goal Compatibility
r=.106
p=.044
r=.320
p=.000
r=.164
p=.003
r=.294
p=.000
ExPR1: The public recognized the existence of a problem.
r=.419
p=.000
r=.443
p=.000
r=.476
p=.000
r=.642
p=.000
ExPR2: The public thought the situation was serious.
r=.449
p=.000
r=.448
p=.000
r=.362
p=.000
r=.524
p=.000
InPR: The members of the public seemed like they wanted to understand the
situation better.
r=.390
p=.000
r=.506
p=.000
r=.384
p=.000
r=.536
p=.000
ExCR1: The public could not solve the problem.
r=.170
p=.003
r=.110
p=.049
r=.111
p=.031
r=.277
p=.000
ExCR2: There were constraints that limited the public's ability to make a
difference in the situation.
r=.052
p=.203
r=.258
p=.000
r=.059
p=.162
r=.129
p=.022
InCR: The public did not understand the situation enough to do anything
about it.
r= -.224
p=.000
r= -.190
p=.002
r= -.148
p=.006
r= -.066
p=.152
ExIN1: The public was highly involved in the situation.
r=.490
p=.000
r=.466
p=.000
r=.359
p=.000
r=.549
p=.000
ExIN2: The members of the public were personally affected by the situation.
r=.269
p=.000
r=.381
p=.000
r=.215
p=.000
r=.447
p=.000
InIN: The members of the public had strong opinions about the situation.
r=.442
p=.000
r=.491
p=.000
r=.311
p=.000
r=.478
p=.000
Table 15: Regression model for information seeking for the informative
strategy
Predictor
Beta
t
p-value
ExIN1: The public was highly involved in the situation.
.231
3.805
.000
InPR: The members of the public seemed like they wanted to understand the
situation better.
.226
4.373
.000
ExPR1: The public recognized the existence of a problem.
.191
3.477
.001
InIN: The members of the public had strong opinions about the situation.
.204
3.415
.001
InCR: The public did not understand the situation enough to do anything
about it.
-.134
-2.637
.009
Table 16: Regression model for information seeking for the facilitative
strategy
Predictor
Beta
t
p-value
InPR: The members of the public seemed like they wanted to understand the
situation better.
.270
4.659
.000
InIN: The members of the public had strong opinions about the situation.
.171
2.481
.014
ExPR1: The public recognized the existence of a problem.
.175
2.986
.003
ExIN1: The public was highly involved in the situation.
.176
2.721
.007
ExCR2: There were constraints that limited the public's ability to make a
difference in the situation.
.149
2.706
.007
InCR: The public did not understand the situation enough to do anything
about it.
-.115
-2.102
.037
Table 17: Regression model for information seeking for the persuasive strategy
Predictor
Beta
t
p-value
ExPR1: The public recognized the existence of a problem.
.377
7.299
.000
InPR: The members of the public seemed like they wanted to understand the
situation better.
.244
4.605
.000
ExIN1: The public was highly involved in the situation.
.165
3.045
.003
Table 18: Regression model for information seeking for the cooperative
strategy
Predictor
Beta
t
p-value
ExPR1: The public recognized the existence of a problem.
.339
6.449
.000
InPR: The members of the public seemed like they wanted to understand the
situation better
.298
6.455
.000
ExIN1: The public was highly involved in the situation.
.185
3.278
.001
ExCR1: The public could not solve the problem.
.143
3.345
.001
InIN: The members of the public had strong opinions about the situation.
.141
2.633
.009
Table 19: Correlations for attributes of publics and information
processing behavior
Attributes of Publics
INFO
Info
Seeking
n=259
FAC
Info
Seeking
n=229
PERS
Info
Seeking n=282
COOP
Info
Seeking n=245
Goal Compatibility
r=-.064
p=.151
r=-.091
p=.086
r=-.082
p=.084
r=-.035
p=.294
ExPR1: The public recognized the existence of a problem.
r=-.112
p=.036
r=-.127
p=.028
r=-.291
p=.000
r=-.250
p=.000
ExPR2: The public thought the situation was serious.
r=-.120
p=.027
r=-.092
p=.083
r=-.220
p=.000
r=-.163
p=.005
InPR: The members of the public seemed like they wanted to understand the
situation better.
r=-.190
p=.001
r=-.136
p=.007
r=-.275
p=.000
r=-.204
p=.001
ExCR1: The public could not solve the problem.
r=-.061
p=.165
r=.082
p=.109
r=.037
p=.269
r=.057
p=.187
ExCR2: There were constraints that limited the public's ability to make a
difference in the situation.
r=.048
p=.222
r=.034
p=.302
r=-.014
p=.405
r=.118
p=.032
InCR: The public did not understand the situation enough to do anything
about it.
r=.260
p=.000
r=.275
p=.000
r=.179
p=.001
r=.330
p=.000
ExIN1: The public was highly involved in the situation.
r=-.287
p=.000
r=-.165
p=.006
r=-.240
p=.000
r=-.225
p=.000
ExIN2: The members of the public were personally affected by the situation.
r=-.013
p=.419
r=-.080
p=.114
r=-.144
p=.008
r=-.114
p=.038
InIN: The members of the public had strong opinions about the situation.
r=-.202
p=.001
r=-.133
p=.022
r=-.229
p=.000
r=-.211
p=.000
Table 20: Regression model for information processing for the informative
strategy
Predictor
Beta
t
p-value
ExIN1: The public was highly involved in the situation.
-.262
-4.473
.000
InCR: The public did not understand the situation enough to do anything
about it.
.231
3.945
.000
Table 21: Regression model for information processing for the facilitative
strategy
Predictor
Beta
t
p-value
InCR: The public did not understand the situation enough to do anything
about it.
.273
4.299
.000
InIN: The members of the public had strong opinions about the situation.
-.127
-2.006
.046
Table 22: Regression model for information processing for the persuasive
strategy
Predictor
Beta
t
p-value
ExPR1: The public recognized the existence of a problem.
-.228
-3.990
.000
InPR: The members of the public seemed like they wanted to understand the
situation better.
-.221
-3.926
.000
InCR: The public did not understand the situation enough to do anything
about it.
.124
2.202
.029
Table 23: Regression model for information processing for the cooperative
strategy
Predictor
Beta
t
p-value
InCR: The public did not understand the situation enough to do anything
about it.
.309
5.201
.000
ExPR1: The public recognized the existence of a problem.
-.219
-3.697
.000
[1] Wilcox, Ault, Agee, & Cameron (2000) note that, among the various
definitions of public relations that have been posited, this definition
best reflects today's modern practice. "Their approach represents the
somewhat newer theory that public relations is more than persuasion. It
should also foster open, two-way communication and mutual understanding
with the idea that an organization also changes its attitudes and behaviors
in the process—not just the target audience" (p. 4).
[2] For further description of the public relations process model, see
Hazleton (1993), Hazleton and Long (1988), Long and Hazleton (1985, 1987),
Page (2000), and Page and Hazleton (1999).
|
