Content-Type: text/html

A Cross-Cultural View of Conflict in Media Relations: The Conflict Management Typology of Media Relations in Korea and the US



Running head: A Cross-Cultural View of Conflict in Media Relations: The Conflict Management Typology of Media Relations in Korea and the US








A Cross-Cultural View of Conflict in Media Relations:
The Conflict Management Typology of Media Relations in Korea and in the US





By





Jae-Hwa Shin
Ph.D. Student
Missouri School of Journalism
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0209C%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D8bit%26P%3D2062373%26B%3D--%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D_2737329%253D%253D_%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a>


Glen T. Cameron, Ph.D.
Professor
Missouri School of Journalism
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0209C%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D8bit%26P%3D2062373%26B%3D--%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D_2737329%253D%253D_%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a>








Manuscript submitted to the Public Relations Division of
the Association for Education in  Journalism and Mass Communication, 2002.
All correspondence concerning this manuscript should be addressed to Jae-Hwa Shin,
3001 South Providence Rd. #8G, MO 65203.
ABSTRACT


A Cross-Cultural View of Conflict in Media Relations:
The Conflict Management Typology of Media Relations in Korea and in the US



This study provides practical guidelines for American public relations professionals who plan to design and implement media relations practice in Korea and for Korean professionals in the U.S. The first section of this study addresses the conflict components essential to the relationship between PR professionals and journalists. The second section of this study addresses cultural components essential to media relations in Korea and the U.S.. The final section discusses the implications of cultural differences for Korean and American media relations by encapsulating them in conflict management typologies.























INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to identify the conflict in the relationship between public relations professionals and journalists in different cultures, and then to propose a strategic approach. Public relations professionals often have to deal with conflicts in their interactions with journalists (Shin & Cameron, 2002). However, often they have not been equipped with sufficient rationale and strategies of conflict management. The field of media relations has had much less emphasis on conflict management, although sporadic studies have described the conflictual nature of public relations (Botan, 1992). The field can benefit by incorporating the conflict or conflict management perspective into its domain at the level of theory-building.
Furthermore, this study suggests some practical implications by incorporating the cross-cultural aspects to the conflict management perspective in media relations. Culture is one of the major components of conflict and plays an especially crucial role in alleviating the conflicting relationship between public relations professionals and journalists. Although there is much discussion regarding the conflicting relationship between public relations professionals and journalists, there has been little attention paid to the way in which the professional activities can be associated with cultural difference of public relations and journalism practice.
The relationship between public relations professionals and journalists historically has been discussed as a conflictual relationship regardless of how much conflict occurs. Accordingly, the existence and nature of conflicts between professionals and journalists has long been a topic of interest in the studies of news work. Most previous studies regard the relationship between the two groups as source-reporter relationship and corroborate the existence of conflict between each other in the agenda building process (Fishman, 1980; Gandy, 1982; Gans, 1979; Rosten, 1937; Sigal, 1973).
Public relations professionals serve as one of the most influential sources through their ability to subsidize information for journalists, while fulfilling their strategic objectives in an advocacy role. Journalists depend on information subsidies from professionals, but mistrust the power that public relations plays in the flow of information because they realize that their role as defenders of the public's right to know. The relationship leads to  an inevitable conflict, in which public relations professionals try to manage the news and journalists try to manage the sources in different directions for their needs. (Arnoff, 1976; Belz, Talbott, & Stark, 1989; Berkowitz, 1993; Cameron, Sallot, & Curtin, 1997; Cutlip, 1962; Kopenhaver, 1985; Pincus, Rimmer, Rayfield, & Cropp, 1993; Ryan & Martinson, 1984; Turk, 1985; Shoemaker & Reese, 1991). Some scholars have suggested that a certain degree of conflict is necessary in the source-reporter relationship, since the conflict comes from their different roles (Sallot, Steinfatt, & Salwen, 1998; Shin & Cameron, 2001)
On the other hand, research also has proved that public relations in international settings effectively faces the challenges of communicating with multicultural publics, and public relations practice in countries throughout the world reflects cultural variance. Empirical evidence currently is available regarding the nature of public relations activities in different cultures (Beng, 1994; Culbertson, 1996; Davis, 2000; Dimitrova, 1998; Ferguson, 1998; Haug & Koppang, 1997; Hierbert, 1992, 1994; Huang, 2000; Kaur, 1997; Lyra, 1991; Singh, 2000; Singh & Smyth, 2000; Taylor, 2000; VanLeuven & Pratt, 1996; Vercic, Grunig, & Grunig, 1996; Wee, Tan, & Chew, 1996; Zaharna, 1995; Zetlin, 1995).
The evidence is particularly strong in the area of scholarship on media relations practice.  Researchers have  long recognized that characteristics of the relationship between public relations professionals and journalists reflect the cultural variability among countries and depend on the culture in which it operates. Different from media relations in the Western countries, public relations professionals in Asian countries such as India, Japan and Korea practice implicit, personal and informal forms of communication with journalists because the media tend to mistrust information that is officially publicized by organizations (Botan, 1992; Grunig et. al., 1995; Shin & Cameron, 2001; Shin & Cameron, 2001; Sriramesh, 1992; Sriramesh & Takasaki, 1999; Sriramesh, Kim, & Takasaki, 1999; Winfield, Mizuno, & Beaudoin, 2000).

Public relations professionals build personal influence with these key individuals by doing favors for them so that they can solicit favors in return when the organizations need help _ Even without writing a press release, many public relations professionals are able to pick up the phone and place stories in the media by using the influence they wield with a friendly journalist or editor. The professionals of all three cultures reported that they "entertained" key publics by providing them with food or drinks and by giving gifts (Sriramesh, Kim, & Takasaki, 1999, p 285).

The personal influence of public relations professionals on the news work in India, Japan and Korea has revealed that the cultural variance in the relationship between public relations professionals and journalists in Asian countries is different from that in Western countries. The impact of interpersonal relationship on media relations is indicative of the high-context, collectivism, high power distance and low uncertainty avoidance on the cultural dimensions that Hofstede (1980) identified. In addition, human factors have been found to play an important role by associating with the cultural elements in the relationship between public relations professionals and journalists in Asian countries
Particularly, the relationship between two professions in Korea has been shown to be affected by a network of social relations, which reflect that the media system is a product of a social culture. Korean professionals are more accustomed to implicit, indirect, informal, closed, private and personal interactions, influencing the aspect of their working relationship. Korean journalists are likely to gather news information through the press club system, with its restricted and controlled membership.  This information source  explicitly shows the personal influence and collective cultural difference in media relations practice in Korea. Journalists in Korea perceive the unique press club system involved in personal relations as credible and ethical in news gathering processes, or tend to mistrust information officially publicized by organizations and prefer disclosed, privatized, indirect or informal information with autonomy of their news selection process (Shin & Cameron, 2001; Sriramesh, Kim, & Takasaki, 1999).
Considering the inevitable conflict between the two professions reflected in the scholarly research, a descriptive study provides the best means to understand the cultural variance in the conflictual relationship and benefit both professions eager to unravel the professional conflict in different cultures. A conflict or conflict management model for public relations is developed as a guideline for suggesting strategies for the conflicting relationship between public relations practitioners and journalists. Also, this study examines various cultural frameworks for conceptualizing how the Asian and Western cultures differ. The current research particularly reviews the literature on conflict management and synthesizes it from a cross-cultural point of view.
In this study, public relations professionals and journalists in Korea and the U.S. were surveyed regarding various types of media relations (ranging from telephone contact, fax news releases, interviews, press conferences, background briefings, official proceedings, private meetings and press tours to e-mail news releases, multimedia press kits, organizational homepage, website pressrooms and online discussion group) in terms of usefulness, credibility, influence, ethics and professionalism. The items represent the personal or mediated relationship, which suggest cultural aspects: personal relationship items are related to high-context, collectivism, high power distance and low uncertainty avoidance.
By examining the different types of media relations related to cultural elements, this study aims at explaining how public relations professionals and journalists of different cultural identities tend to approach their conflictual relationship.  Finally, the conflict management typology in media relations is developed as a guideline for suggesting various strategies to manage conflicts that arise in the relationship between public relations professionals and journalists in different cultural contexts.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The Conflict Perspective of Media Relations
Public relations is often identified as "the management of communication between an organization and its publics" (Grunig & Hunt, 1984, p.6). The concept of conflict offers particular promise for the understanding and perhaps even improvement of the public relations work by introducing the nature of difference among individuals, social groups, formal organizations and nations. The conflict management model best describe the public relations behavior when an organization must manage communication demanded by publics such as journalists, consumers, stockholders, activists and employees. This study develops the conflict management theory of public relations, focusing on media relations in particular.
Rubin et al.(1994) defined conflict as any situation in which two or more parties of individuals, groups, organizations or communities perceive a divergence of interests, and essentially, the perceived difference between two parties' values. Conflict may be identified as a competition between two parties for scarce resources, prestige and power (Laue, 1987), or "an expressed struggle between at least two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce resources and interference from the other party in achieving goals" (Hocker & Wilmot, 1991, p. 12). Brickman (1974) also defined conflict as a "situation in which parties must divide or share resources so that, to some degree, the more one party gets, the less others can have." Plowman (1995) characterized that two parties in conflict have consequences for each other.
These definitions of conflict in interpersonal communication offer particular promise for the understanding and perhaps even improvement of the source-reporter relationship by introducing the communicative nature of difference (sender versus receiver or gatekeeper), interdependence of parties in roles and needs (source versus reporter), difference of power (information withholding versus news selection) and perceived incompatibility of goals or values (source's advocacy for favorable coverage versus reporter objectivity for credibility) with scarce resource (limited print or air) and consequences for each other (interference from the other party).
Most importantly, the conflict relationship is based on the interdependent roles in the source-reporter relationship. Public relations professionals serve as one of the most influential sources of news through their ability to subsidize information for journalists (Gandy, 1982). Gans (1979) defined sources as "the actors whom journalists observe or interview, including interviewees who appear on the air or who are quoted in articles, _ and those who only supply background information or story suggestions" (p. 80). Shoemaker and Reese (1991) similarly described sources as "external suppliers of raw materials, whether speeches, interviews, corporate reports or government hearings," and indicated "sources have a tremendous effect on mass media content because journalists can't conclude in their news what they don't know"(p. 81). In the source-reporter relationship between public relations professionals and journalists, information subsidies can be characterized as routine channels su
ch as news releases, news conferences, preplanned events or official proceedings (Berkowitz,1993). However, all sources of information are not influential to journalists. Whereas public relations professionals have power as informations subsidies, journalists have power in the news selection process.
Moreover, although public relations serves as one of the sources to subsidize information for journalists, journalists do not tend to admit the power of public relations on their news work. They view public relations and its professionals as inferior  in terms of usefulness, influence, credibility, ethics and professionalism. The fundamental conflict in the source-reporter relationship has been confirmed by much scholarly work. (Arnoff, 1976; Belz, Talbott, & Stark, 1989; Berkowitz, 1993; Cameron, Sallot, & Curtin, 1997; Curtin, 1997; Curtin & Rhodenbough, 2001; Cutlip, 1962; Fishman, 1980; Gandy, 1982; Gans, 1979; Kopenhaver, 1985; Pincus, Rimmer, Rayfield, & Cropp, 1993; Rosten, 1937; Ryan & Martinson, 1984; Sallot, Steinfatt, & Salwen, 1998; Shin & Cameron, 2001; Shoemaker & Reese, 1991; Sigal, 1973; Turk, 1986).

A Cross-Cultural View of Media Relations
Based on the conflict perspective of the relationship between public relations professionals and journalists, this study examines media relations with cultural variances, which identify the cultural elements to influence the relationship. There has been little previous research about how the two professions interact in the news work in different cultural contexts (Shin & Cameron, 2001; Sriramesh & Takasaki, 1999; Sriramesh, Kim, & Takasaki, 1999). This study focuses on the media relations involved in routine or regular channels where public relations professionals and journalists traditionally interact as source and reporter in the Korean and American cultures.
From the previous study, media relations in Korea details the features as interpersonal interactions. The interpersonal nature of informal communication through press club system influences the relationship between public relations professionals and journalists in the news work (Shin & Cameron, 2001). The press club systems can provide an account of their extensiveness and embedness, and describe how public relations professionals and journalists use  ordinary encounters to manage their role of conflict in the working relationship. This study aims at discovering that informal and unofficial mediation through press club systems is common in the conflictual working relationship in Korea. The mediation factor is mostly interpersonal, privatized, closed, collective and informal setting, which creates a more cooperative atmosphere in the conflicting relationship between public relations professionals and journalists.
On the other hand, the relationship between public relations practitioners and journalists in the U.S. are characterized as mediated interactions by employing the advanced technology as much as possible in their working relationship. Some 88 percent of public relations practitioners admitted that their departments use online services to support public relations objectives (Ryan, 1999), and journalists' use of online news releases grew substantially from 26 percent in 1995 to 72 percent in 2000 (Middleberg & Ross, 2000). The mediated, personalized or individual relationship is involved in a computer and technology-based relationship, where public relations professionals and journalists interact as source and reporter directly by using the Internet and related technologies (Bovet, 1995; Ha & James, 2000; Hill & White, 2000; Garrison, 1995; Garrison, 1997; Garrison, 2000; Holtz, 1999; Marlow, 1996; Noack, 1999; O'Keefe, 1997). Many scholars believe that the absence of nonverbal cues
has led to impersonal communication. As communication channels filter out nonverbal cues, there is "less salience of the co presence of other people," and "the absence of nonverbal social context cues" causes users to become depersonalized and interpersonally hostile" (Walther, 1994, p. 475). The relationship factor is mostly mediated, direct, individual communication, which creates a more conflicting atmosphere in the relationship between public relations professionals and journalists.
As cultural elements have unfolded, Korean media relations can be distinguished from the U.S. media relations in several ways. The relationship between public relations professionals and journalists can be associated with such cultural tendencies as high-context or low-context, collectivism or individualism, high or low power distance, high or low uncertainty avoidance. Korean communication differs from American communication in terms of subculture, structure, process and relationship. Its nature is implicit rather than explicit, its structure is based on collectivism rather than individualism, its process is top down instead of bottom up, and it relationship is oriented to long-term relationship instead of short-term relationship. The difference between Korean media relations and the U.S. media relations can be better specified to propose the cultural variance in the conflictual source-reporter relationship as follows:

High-context & Low-context
Hall (1976; 1982) discussed the concept of high context and low context cultures by considering meaning and context as "inextricably bound up with each other." The difference between high and low context cultures depends on how much meaning is found in the context versus in the code. The U.S culture is one of the well know low-context cultures, where meaning is placed more in the language code than in the context; information is vested in the explicit code; and accordingly, communication tends to be explicit, specific and analytical (Ting-Toomey, 1985). On the other hand, Korean culture is a high-context culture, where meaning is embedded more in the context than in the code. Hall (1982) stated, "most of the information is either in the physical context or internalized in the person, while very little is in the coded, explicit, transmitted part of the message" (p.12). Explicit communication has traditionally been overlooked in Korea because, given its common race and culture, it h
as been assumed that everybody understands every one else without verbally communicating, and a special meaning is often found in the context rather than in the code. Thus, the contextual cues need to be understood to grasp the full meaning of the message.
        Applying this cultural orientation to the relationship between public relations professionals and journalists, media relations in Korean culture is featured as a more implicit communication process than in the U.S. culture. In a Korean cultural context, the relationship between public relations professionals and journalists appreciates the personal relationship through press club system. The press club system makes the working relationship close and creates social networking, which precludes the news from a disseminating or gathering process with implicit communication beyond official news releases or formal interviews. Korean journalists often enjoy the context rather than the code provided by public relations professionals to get a unique scoop  from the communicated message  (Shin & Cameron, 2001).

Collectivism & Individualism
Hofstede (1980) identified a widely-used cultural dimension of collectivism versus individualism. Collectivism versus individualism represents the value of the group identity versus the value of individual's rights or characteristics. Whereas the U.S. culture emphasizes what is best for an individual, Korean culture is group-oriented by employing a "we" stance. The Korean culture is contingent on relations by referring to dependence groups, organizations or other collectivities and approaching collective problem solving. The U.S. culture is an inner-directed type rather than an other-directed in normative stance.  Furthermore, "there is a strong feeling that individualism is good and collectivism bad" (Hofstede, 1980, p. 95). As individualism has been associated with modernity, a society degree of modernity has become a major determinant of societal norms: "Modern man (feels that) _ he controls the reinforcement he receives from his environment_ Traditional man has narrow in group
s, _ he sees interpersonal relations as an end, _ he does not believe that he can control his environment (Triandis, 1972, p.8).
Applying this cultural dimension to the relationship between public relations professionals and journalists, both professionals in the U.S. tend toward mediated relationships by employing technologies in their working relationships to enhance self-driven professionalism, need a verb inner-directed normative sense and  seek for what is best for an individual (Jonnson, 1997; Noack, 1999; Porter et al., 2001; Thompsen, 1996).In addition, both professions tend to seek interpersonal harmony with the other professions and search for intimate interactions and mutual solidarity in the working relationship in Korean cultural context, whereas both professionals in the U.S. play a role of source or reporter in a different direction.. The press club system is an institutionalized media system, which creates mutual dependence in the working relationship. Public relations professionals for an organization send press  releases at the same time to journalists, who are belonging to the press club
of the organization. These press releases include an embargo that is a stamp indicating the day from which a journalist can release the information. If a journalist violates the embargo, he or she is excluded from receiving further press releases from the press club. This policy helps contribute to the convenience of press releases and avoid an exclusive scoop, which results in reducing the conflictual aspects of the working relationship.


Power Distance
According to Hofstede (1980), power distance indicates the tolerance for social hierarchy and class structure. The U.S. culture is a low power distance culture, where egalitarianism and equality are valued. However, Korean culture is a high power distance culture, which exhibits power differentials by title and social standing. High power distance has been deemed to have the most effect on social network constructs by creating the hierarchy and inequality of power in the structure (Morley, 1998). In high power distance culture, relational or social orientation is important for power structure.
 Applying this cultural dimension to the relationship between public relations professionals and journalists, high power distance particularly is important to Korean public relations professionals and journalists on the basis of their expected hierarchical cultural values. Since the relational and social orientation through the press club system is critical in Korean media relations, each professional is accustomed to the patterns for interacting with other profession in the system, where each is closely related to the other. The press club system is hierarchically structured to essentially contribute to the informational exchange between two professions. Journalists in Korea mostly depend on informational resources from public relations professionals through the structured and established human network.

Uncertainty Avoidance
Hofstede (1980) suggested that uncertainty avoidance is the extent to which members of a culture can tolerate and cope with risk or ambiguity. The U.S. culture is a high uncertainty avoidance culture, which tends to avoid risk, add formal structure, control to their environments and use technology. On the other hand, Korean culture is a low uncertainty avoidance culture, which is likely to take risk, create informal codes, accept ambiguity and emphasize human relations. Gudykunst (1997) suggested that a low uncertainty avoidance culture "accept distance and taking risks," whereas a high uncertainty avoidance culture "try to avoid ambiguity and therefore develop rules and rituals for virtually every possible situation _" (p. 330).
Applying this cultural dimension to the relationship between public relations professionals and journalists, the U.S. culture is a high uncertainty avoidance culture, where professionals are likely to formalize written codes of ethics and oriented to "higher levels of the importance of ethical problems" (Armstrong, 1996). Public relations professionals and journalists in the U.S. tend to employ technology in the working relationship as well as professional ethical codes to enhance their self-driven professionalism. On the other hand, Korean culture is a low uncertainty avoidance culture, where two professions tend to create informal codes in their working relationship. Their informatl exchange often occurs in informal settings, such as  informal meetings with dinner or drinks, activities for friendship including golf/climbing, etc. Public relations professionals and journalists perceive their informal relations as ethical and influential in their news disseminating or gathering pr
ocess (Shin & Cameron, 2001).

Time Orientation
Time orientation is related to the concept of monochronism or polychronism (Lee, 2000). The U.S. culture is oriented to monochromism and short-term relationship, where relationship is functional for the short term. On the other hand, Korean culture is oriented to polychronism and long-term relationship, where relationship is dysfunctional in situations that demand monochronic performance. Those with polychronic tendencies seek human interactions to establish and maintain long-term relationships beyond short-term working relationship.
 Applying this cultural dimension to the relationship between public relations professionals and journalists, public relations practitioners and journalists establish and maintain human interactions through press club system beyond a short-term working relationship in Korean cultural context. The press club system constructs the social relations between two professionals for the continuity of their relationship. The system is structurally and institutionally established and maintained for news disseminating or gathering purpose of two professions. Public relations professionals and journalists appreciate the convenience of the news disseminating or gathering process through their human interactions. They reach mutual enlightenment and understanding of their long-term working relationships in the system.

Communication Matrix
A communication matrix is how various communication components are associated with a culture (Kanso & Alan, 2002). The U.S. culture is advanced with mass media communication, while interpersonal communication plays an important role in Korean culture. Interpersonal communication channels are commonly used for information processing. Human factors in interpersonal communication are a key element in Korean cultural context in spite of advances in technology. Relational orientation or social networking is based on interpersonal communication.
Applying this cultural dimension to the relationship between public relations professionals and journalists, computer or related technologies often play a central role in news disseminating or gathering process in the U.S. (Middleberg & Ross, 2000; Ryan, 1999). While public relations professionals in the U.S. culture are expected to serve time assertions in press releases (Lasica, 1997), professionals in Korean culture often serve position papers, providing events or background information as a word of mouth in interpersonal relationship. Also, public relations professionals and journalists employ interpersonal communication to develop personal influence with each other. Public relations professionals encourage informal relations, i.e. hosting dinner, drinking, golf, etc., in the relationship with journalists from whom they could ask for return favor later (Shin & Cameron, 2001; Sriramesh, 1991).
Based on the cultural dimensions, this study has examined how the cultural dimensions, i.e. high-context or low context, individualism or collectivism, high or low power distance, high or low uncertainty avoidance, monochronism or polychronism, or interpersonal or mediated communication, are applied to the conflict or conflict management styes of public relations professionals and journalists in Korea and the U.S. The concept of cultural dimensions is related to both cultures and profesions to provide a means of  approaching the cultural variance in the conflict or conflict management styles of two professions.  From previous studies, public relations professionals and journalists in Korean culture have been shown to be accustomed to a high context, collectivism, high power distance, low uncertainty avoidance, polychronism and interpersonal communication. Also,  both professions in the U.S. culture have been shown to be oriented to low context, individualism, low power distance, h
igh uncertainty avoidance, monochronism and mediated communication. This cultural difference in media relations basically is related to the press club system, which creates more personal influence on media relations in Korean cultural context.

A Cross-Cultural View of Conflict Management Styles in Media Relations
The conflict management literature identifies various types of conflict management strategies. Blake and Shepard's (1964) early developed a conflict model of management styles within a framework of two motivational dimensions: a self-oriented and an other-oriented concern. Deutsh (1973) also suggested a conflict management model with a notion that conflict management styles can be arrayed on a single dimension ranging from selfishness (concern about own outcomes) to cooperativeness (concern about the other party's outcomes). However, this model does not include styles that involve high concern for both self and other, and styles that involve a high concern for neither self nor other (Killman & Thomas, 1977).
Based on two dimensions of assertiveness (attempting to satisfy one's own concerns) and cooperation (attempting to satisfy the other person's concerns), Kilmann and Thomas (1977) developed five conflict styles: competing, compromising, collaborating, accommodating and avoiding. Competing is a mode in which one seeks for one's own concerns at the other party's expense. Compromising is a mode in which parties satisfy at least some of their concerns. Collaborating is an approach in which one attempts to work with the other party to find a mutually satisfying solution. Accommodating is a mode in which one ignores one's own concern to satisfy the concern of the other party. Avoiding is a mode in which one is not either assertive or cooperative. Rahim and Bonoma (1979) similarly modeled five styles in conflict management including integrating, obliging, dominating, compromising, avoiding on two dimensions of concern for self and concern for others.
However, the evidence from empirical studies has revealed that the five types of conflict management models showed mixed results (Jehn & Weldon, 1997). Rubin et al. (1994) argued that five conflict management strategies are not necessary in conflict management models. The important insight is that one's low concern for the other party occurs with two quite different styles, i.e. avoiding and collaborating, and competing and accommodating. Accordingly, the two styles of collaborating or competing likely explain how public relations practitioners and journalists manage conflict in their working relationship in different cultural contexts.
As cultural dimensions become incorporated into conflict management in public relations, there have been a lot of studies indicating the friction of conflict management styles in cultural orientations. Research on conflict management across cultures suggests that there are cultural differences in conflict management styles. Gudykunst (1993) found that members of high-context cultures employ non-confrontation orientation more than members of low-context cultures, while members of low-context cultures employed solution orientations more than members of high-context cultures.
Also, consistent with this research are findings from studies on conflict resolution styles of collectivist culture versus individualistic culture. Cathcart & Cathcart (1976) found that members of collectivist cultures value harmonious interpersonal relationship with others. Ting-Toomey  (1991) also found that members of collectivist cultures avoid open conflict and prefer indirect or compromising style of conflict management. In the cultural orientation dimension, whereas Korean participants tended to used solution-oriented conflict strategies, North American participants tended to use either controlling or avoidance strategies (Lee & Logan, 1991).
Collectivist cultures t particularly are associated with power distance culture in conflict management styles. Members in collectivist cultures have shown a high power distance orientation on the basis of expected hierarchical cultural values and revealed less self-interest than members in individualism and low power distance cultures in conflict management (Brett & Okumura, 1998). Ting-Toomey et al. (2001) found that low power distance cultures had less concern for avoiding conflict management style and more concern for dominating conflict management styles through a survey of face or facework in conflict in China, Germany, Japan and the U.S. Relationship orientation also is related to conflict management styles.
Furthermore, Ganesan (1993) investigated the impact of time orientation in developing relationships with the public r based on the use of conflict resolution strategies such as problem solving, compromise and aggressiveness. Relationship duration was found to positively correlate with problem-solving or compromising strategies. As a relationship endures, continual communication or information exchange was found to help compromising or problem-solving approach to resolving conflicts in working relationship (Dwyer & Oh, 1987). Tse, Franis, and Walls (1994) found that the conflict resolution strategies of Canadian and Chinese were different in negotiating across cultures. Chinese participants were more likely to avoid conflicts but recommended more negative strategies (discontinue negotiation; withdraw negotiation) particularly when person-related conflicts emerged. This finding implies that interpersonal relationship or communication can be a key element related to conflict or confl
ict management.
From the conflict management literature in different cultures, this study examined how the conflict in the relationship between public relations professionals and journalists can be managed in Korea and the U.S. Both public relations professionals and journalists are likely to use more compromising or problem-solving strategies in their professional relationship in Korean culture, while both professions are oriented to employ competing or confronting strategies in the U.S. culture. Korean professionals tend to be accustomed to interpersonal strategies because human factors play a crucial role in Korean culture. More fundamentally, they appreciate harmonious interpersonal relationship in a Korean context. The conflict between public relations professionals and journalist in Korean media system can be bigger than the conflict between two professions in the U.S media system because conflict management styles are associated with cultural difference.

RESEARCH  QUESTIONS

From the outset, this study focused on the relationship between public relations professionals and journalists where they play conflictual roles of source and reporter (Cameron, Sallot, & Curtin, 1997; Shin & Cameron, 2002). Some of the source-reporter relationship is based on the previous studies regarding personal influence on media relations (Shin & Cameron, 2001; Sriramesh, Kim, & Takasaki, 1999). The other source-reporter relationship is involved in mediated relationship, where public relations professionals and journalists interact as source and reporter using the Internet and related technologies (Ha & James, 2000; Hill & White, 2000; Garrison, 1995; Garrison, 1997; Garrison, 2000; Holtz, 1999; Marlow, 1996; O'Keefe, 1997; Whalther,1996). This study aimed at identifying what is the conflict between two professions and how they approach the conflict in Korea and the U.S. by examining the cultural difference in interpersonal or mediated media relations.
Considering the cultural variance, it is predicted that the professions in Korea will exhibit a different perspective of the source-reporter relationship from those in the U.S. The professionals in Korea will be inclined to employ more interpersonal source-reporter relationship techniques because they are more accustomed to, and concerned about implicit, indirect, informal and interpersonal interactions, which is closely related to high-context, collectivism, high power distance, low uncertainty avoidance, polychronic time orientation, interpersonal communication. On the other hand, the professionals in the U.S. will tend to use more mediated source-reporter relationship techniques because they are more accustomed to, and concerned about, explicit, direct, formal and mediated interactions. All of these interactions are closely related to low-context, individualism, low power distance, high uncertainty avoidance, monochronic time orientation and mediated communication.
As associated with cultural difference of media relations, both public relations professionals and journalists are likely to use more compromising or problem-solving conflict management strategies in their working relationship in Korean culture, while both professions are oriented to employ competing or confronting conflict management strategies in the U.S. culture. Accordingly, the conflict between public relations professionals and journalists in Korean media system will be bigger than the conflict between two professions in the U.S media system. Therefore, the research questions and hypotheses are.

RQ1: What are the dominating factors that are associated with the conflict between public relations professionals and journalists in Korea and the U.S.?

H1: There will be greater influence as a function of culture in difference than as a function of professions in conflict, with both public relations professionals and journalists in Korea being more attuned to interpersonal techniques than public relations professionals and journalists in the U.S.

RQ2: What is the attitudinal difference in the conflict management styles of Korean professionals and the U.S. professionals?

H2: The conflict between public relations professionals and journalists will be greater in the U.S. media system than in Korean media system, with both public relations professionals and journalists in Korea being more oriented to compromising or problem-solving strategies.

METHODS

In order to examine the professional conflict in different cultures, mail surveys and follow-up efforts to collect completed surveys were conducted among public relations professionals and journalists in Korea and the U.S. Each sample of 400 public relations professionals with a margin of error of 5 percent was respectively drawn from the directory of Korean Public Relations Association (2000) and Public Relations Society of America's member roster (2000).  Also, each sample of 400 journalists with a margin of error of 5 percent was selected from the directory of Journalists Association of Korea (2000), and Editors & Publishers' member roster (2000) and Bacon Directory (2000). The samples consist of randomly selected public relations professionals working at agencies, corporations, non-profit organizations and government organizations, and randomly selected journalists working at daily newspaper offices, broadcasting/radio stations and wire services.
The questionnaire was based on the literature pertaining to the relationship between public relations professionals and journalists. The relationship variables from the previous studies along with a set of demographic variables were used as discriminating variables in the statistical analysis. They include 11 types of interpersonal source-reporter relationships (i.e. telephone contact, fax/mail/wire/courier press releases, speeches, interviews, press conferences, background briefings, official proceedings, press tours, private meetings, drink/dinner/luncheon, and gathering activities including golf), and 9 types of mediated source-reporter relationship (i.e. e-mail news releases, multimedia press kits, streaming audio/video clips, online inquiry, online interviews/ web chatting, organizational homepages,  website pressrooms, Internet video conference, and online discussion group/ forum). Demographic questions on information such as age, gender, education, work, position, working y
ears, online access frequency, online access time, knowledge of online use in news disseminating/gathering, influence of online media on news disseminating/gathering, and preference for online news disseminating/ gathering are included for the additional analysis.
The survey asked respondents to assess the degree of "usefulness," "influence," "credibility," "ethics" and "professionalism," with each 11 types of interpersonal source-reporter relationship and 9 types of mediated source-reporter relationships by measuring on a 5-point Likert-type scale, where 1 is "not useful," "not influential," "not credible," "not ethical" and "not professional," and 5 is "very useful," "very influential," "very credible," "very ethical" and "very professional." The questionnaire, with a battery of 100 questions (20 types in 5 terms), was transmitted via mail, fax and e-mail in Korea and the U.S. from June to July 2001. A follow-up reminder was transmitted via mail, fax and e-mail in Korea and the U.S. from July and August 2001. The survey yielded 339 total usable responses for a 21 percent return rate.

RESULTS

The purpose aimed at determining if professional and cultural variables could make an accurate discrimination among public relations professionals and journalists in Korea and the U.S. cultures. The conflict between the two professional groups has been demonstrated in research, and the U.S. public relations practice has been positioned as a leading trend, whereas Korean public relations practice includes the unique non-Western culture. The discrimination function analysis identifies variables that  distinguish public relations professionals and journalists, and distinguishes the Korean professionals from the U.S. professionals. The combination of professional and cultural variances categorizes the four groups (Korean public relations professionals, Korean journalists, U.S. public relations professionals and U.S. journalists) on two dimensions. The discrimination functions could be employed toward identifying likely strategic types of media relations in managing the conflict in sou
rce-reporter relationship.

Demographic Characteristics
Questions were included to determine the respondent's gender, age, work, position and working year. The subjects were from four groups of Korean public relations professionals, Korean journalists, U.S. public relations professionals and U.S. journalists. Of the 339 professionals participating in the survey, 53 percent were public relations professionals (N=179), and 47 percent were journalists (N=160).  Some 34 percent of the respondents were the U.S. professionals (N=114), and 66 percent were Korean professionals (N=225).
About a half were 30-39 years old(N=140), and another approximate half were younger than 30 (N=60) and 40-49 (N=79), with the oldest groups at ages between 50-59 (N=25) and more than 60 years old(N=3). About two thirds were male (N=203), and another approximate third were female (N= 104). Some 76 percent of the professionals possessed bachelor degrees (N=234), while 22.8 percent have acquired master's degree (N=67) and doctoral degrees (N=3). Only 1.3 percent reported "some high school" (N=4). Some 37 percent of public relations professionals reported being affiliated with corporations (N=73), 29.9 percent  working with agencies (N=59) and the rest with nonprofit organizations (N=6) and non private organizations (N=7); while some 66 percent of journalists (N=94) reported working for newspapers, with the rest working for broadcast (N=8), radio (N=1), wire (N=8) and magazine (N=4).  Some 48.4 percent of the respondents were editors or management levels (N=136), while 33 percent were
 reporter or staff level positioned (N=139). Almost 33 percent  have worked for less than 5 years (N=95); 26 percent  for 5-9 years (N=75); 19.4 percent for 10-14 years (N=56); 9.4 percent  for 15-19 years (N=27), 4.5 percent for 20-24 years (N=13), 4.5 percent for 25-29 years (N=13) and 3.1 percent for more than 30 years (N=9).

Insert Table 1 about here

Discriminant Factors in the Cultural Dimension of Media Relations
 Discriminant function analysis was employed to identify the combination of variables that best  distinguish the four groups from each other. This analysis enabled simultaneous evaluation of various types of source-reporter techniques as discriminators, adjusting for Type 1 error resulting when numerous significance tests are made. The variables on the combination of both professional and cultural dimensions, which discriminated Korean public relations professionals, Korean journalists, U.S. public relations professionals and U.S. journalists showed high values in group membership prediction with two functions (Function 1: Canonical correlation=0.962, Wilks' Lamda= 0.004, Chi-square=914.464, p=0.000; Function 2: Canonical correlation=0.910, Wilks' Lamda=0.059, Chi-square=477.506, p=0.000). The Chi-square test computed during discriminant analysis indicated that two statistically significant functions were found, and the Wilks' Lamda values also indicated that the two functions acc
ount for most of the explanatory value to be derived from the discriminating variables.  Some 97.8 percent of original grouped cases were correctly classified (94.9 percent of Korean public relations professionals group, 100 percent of Korean journalists group, 100 percent of U.S. public relations professionals group, and 100 percent of U.S. journalists group), and accounted for by the two functions of profession and culture. Similar to the separate dimension analysis, a function of culture suggested a higher value ingroup membership prediction than a function of profession.
Table 2 identifies the contribution each variable makes to each of the two functions independent of all other variables. By examining the correlations between a function and individual variables, intuitive labels can be given to functions that best describe the meaning of each function. The variables appearing on the cultural dimension mostly are related to interpersonal types of source-reporter relationship in terms of ethics (i.e. interviews, telephone contact, fax/mail/courier press releases, press tours, press conferences, speeches, drink/dinner/luncheon, official proceedings, etc). On the other hand, the variables appearing on the professional dimension mostly are related to mediated types of source-reporter relationships in terms of usefulness, influence and professionalism (i.e. website pressrooms, multimedia press kits, streaming audio/video clips, organizational homepages and etc.). The results suggest that the cultural dimension can be accounted for by interpersonal types of source-reporter relationships.

Insert Table 2 about here

A two dimensional depiction of how the variables work to differentiate the four groups is presented in Figure 1. The discriminant function centroids to differentiate Korean professions and the U.S. professions are somewhat distributed along the cultural function but less so along the professional function. The Korean professional groups tend toward negative values on Function 1, while the U.S. professional groups tend in the opposite direction along the dimension (Group centroids; Korean public relations professionals: -3.043, Korean journalists: -1.274; U.S. journalists: 4.557; U.S. public relations professionals: 5.069). With the negative values of within-groups correlations presented in table 2, the results show that Korean professionals tend positively toward the interpersonal source-reporter relationship, whereas the U.S. professionals tend negatively toward the interpersonal source-reporter relationship.
Function 2 is effective in consistently separating U.S. public relations professionals and U.S. journalists, but Korean public relations professionals and journalists display a mixed pattern along the dimension. Nonetheless, Korean and U.S. public relations professionals tend toward negative values on Function 1, while Korean and US journalists group in the opposite direction along the dimension (Group centroids; US journalists: 3.609; US public relations professionals: -3.668; Korean public relations professionals: -0.487; Korean journalists: 0.943). The results show that public relations professionals tend to desire the mediated source-reporter relationship, with the positive values of within-groups correlations presented in table 2.
Therefore, Function 1 is effective in discriminating U.S. from Korean professionals, which reflects the cultural variance between Korea and the U.S., while profession is undifferentiated along the dimension. Function 2 is effective in separating groups into U.S. public relations professionals and US journalists, and also slightly discriminating Korean public relations professionals and Korean journalists, which replicates the professional difference.

Insert Figure 1 about here

DISCUSSION

As hypothesized by this study, distinguishing by culture appears to provide a useful extension of the conflict or conflict management models in the source-reporter relationships in different cultures. The discriminant function of cultural difference is more distinguishing in the source-reporter relationship than as a function of professional conflict. By introducing the distinction, it was found that the conflict in the relationship between public relations professionals and journalists is influenced by cultural differences for most members of the designated population in terms of interpersonal source-reporter relationship. That is, the dominating factors to discriminate the U.S. professionals and Korean professionals are interpersonal types of source-reporter relationships, i.e. ratings for interviews, telephone contact, fax/mail/courier press releases, press tours, press conferences, speeches, drink/dinner/luncheon, official proceedings, etc.
Public relations professionals and journalists in Korea are less conflict - oriented or more attuned to interpersonal techniques than public relations professionals and journalists in the U.S. This is no different from the previous studies regarding personal influence on media relations in Asian countries and, particularly, on informal relations in Korea (Shin & Cameron, 2001; Sriramesh, Kim, & Takasaki, 1999). Korean professionals may tend to employ more interpersonal media relationship techniques because they are inherently more accustomed to, and concerned about implicit, indirect, informal, closed and interpersonal interactions than explicit, direct, formal, open and mediated interactions. It is possible that human factors still play an important role in the source-reporter relationship in spite of advances in mediated communication technology.
As the second hypothesis stated, the conflict between public relations professionals and journalists is greater in the U.S. media system than in the Korean media system, with both public relations professionals and journalists in Korea being more oriented to compromising or problem-solving strategies. Based on the interpersonal relationship, Korean public relations professionals and journalists may be closer to each other in their working relationships. Both professions may tend to  seek for interpersonal harmony with the other profession, especially encouraging intimate interactions and mutual solidarity in the Korean cultural context. Both professionals in the U.S. tend toward mediated relationship by employing computer or related technologies in their working relationship to enhance self-driven professionalism, inner-directed normative sense and what is best for an individual (Jonnson, 1997; Porter et al., 2001; Thompsen, 1996).
The findings here suggest that the conflict-oriented nature and conflict management styles in the relationship between public relations professionals and journalists reflect political, economic and social elements of a culture as a product of a culture. In the Korean cultural context, the press club system is structured hierarchically to essentially contribute to the informational exchange and enhance the mutual dependence between two professions in the working relationship. The press club system may be mediating the conflict between two professions by constructing the social relations between two professionals to maintain the working relationship for news disseminating or gathering purpose. Journalists mostly depend on informational resources from public relations professionals in the media system, and public relations practitioners have more power in working relationship with journalists in the Korean culture than in the U.S. culture. On the other hand, both professionals are li
kely to empower themselves by employing computer or related technologies in the working relationship, i.e. website pressrooms, multimedia press kits, streaming audio/video clips, organizational homepages and etc. This may bring about a more conflict-based relationship, and more competing or confronting conflict management styles.
Also, the two professionals in the U.S culture are likely to formalize written codes of ethics to enhance their self-driven professionalism and empowerment in the working relationship, whereas in Korean culture, the two professions tend to create informal codes in their working relationship in. Information exchange often occurs in informal relations, i.e. informal meetings with dinner or drinks, golf, etc. where public relations professionals ask for a return favor, i.e. favorable coverage in Korean media system. Public relations professionals and journalists perceive their informal relations as ethical and influential in news disseminating or gathering process (Shin & Cameron, 2001; 2002).
Public relations professionals and journalists appreciate the convenience of news disseminating or gathering process through the press club system. They reach mutual enlightenment and understanding of their long-term working relationship in the system. While public relations professionals in the U.S. culture are expected to serve time assertions  in press releases, professionals in Korean culture often provide position papers, providing events or background information as a word of mouth in the interpersonal relationship. Korean journalists often enjoy the context rather than the code provided by public relations professionals to get a unique story that is read between the lines of the press release. Journalists tend to mistrust information officially publicized by organizations and prefer indirect, closed, privatized or informal information for autonomy and motivations of self-serving in their news selection process. Implicit communication beyond official press releases or formal interviews are important in the work relationship on the basis of their expected patterns for interacting with each other in Korean culture.
The findings here also suggest the practical and managerial implications to both public relations professionals and journalists. Public relations professionals and journalists should understand that cultural values play an important role in the source-reporter relationship, and, when approaching the source-reporter relationship in different cultures, both professions as source or reporter should prepare to settle the business, social, economic, political and cultural complexities inherent in the national settings. As opposed to the media relations design in the U.S. culture, the interpersonal  types of media relations techniques should be employed to the likely strategic conflict management in the source-reporter relationship in Korean culture because the personal and informal factors remain an integral part of media relations in Korean culture (i.e. interviews, telephone contact, fax/mail/courier press releases, press tours, drink/dinner/luncheon, etc.). Also, Korean professional
s tend to employ comprising or problem-solving conflict management styles rather than confronting or contending conflict management styles, which result with less conflict between two professionals in Korea than in the U.S.
Overall, this study has examined how the cultural dimensions, i.e. high-context or low context, collectivism or individualism, high or low power distance, low or high uncertainty avoidance, polychronism or monochronism, and interpersonal or mediated communication, are applied to the professional conflict or conflict management styles of public relations professionals and journalists. The results support a cross-cultural perspective of conflict and conflict management strategies in media relations. Public relations professionals and journalists in Korean culture are less likely to seek conflict or more attuned to interpersonal source-reporter relationship. This basically is related to the press club system, which creates more personal influence on media relations in the controlled, restricted, structured or institutionalized system.
This finding suggests that the traditional conflict between public relations professionals and journalists can be resolved, or at least ameliorated by employing a cross-cultural approach in a cultural context. The conflict between public relations professionals and journalists may be managed by interpersonal techniques in high context, collectivism, low power distance, low uncertainty avoidance, polychronism and mediated communication oriented cultures. This study has tested a theoretical potential of conflict or conflict management models in public relations from cross-cultural perspective, but more specific models of conflict management strategies should be developed for the effectiveness of media relations in different cultures. Such a model will help develop a more comprehensive public relations theory.

Insert Figure 2 about here





































REFERENCES

Armstrong, R. W. (1996). "The relationship between culture and perception of ethical problems in international marketing,"Journal of Business Ethics, 15(11), 119-228.

Arnoff, C. E. (1975). "Credibility of public relations for journalists," Public Relations Review, 1 (1), 45-56.

Arnoff, C. E. (1976). "Predictors of success in placing news releases in newspapers," Public Relations Review, 2 (4), 43-57.

Belz, A., Talbott, A. D., & Starck, K. (1989). "Using role theory to study cross perceptions of journalists and public relations professionals." In J. E. Grunig, & L. A. Grunig (Eds.), Public Relations Research Annual: Vol. 1 (pp. 125-139). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Beng, Y. S. (1994). "The state of public relations in Singapore," Public Relations Review, 20 (4), 373-395.

Berkowitz, D. (1993). "Work rules and news selection in local TV: Examining the business-journalism dialectic," Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 37, 67-81.

Berkowitz, D., & Beach, D.W. (1993). "News sources and news context: The effect of routine news, conflict and proximity," Journalism Quarterly, 70 (1), 4-12.

Black, R. R. & Mouton, J. S. (1964). The managing grid. Houston, TX: Gulf.

Botan, C. H. (1992). "International public relations: Critique and reformulation," Public Relations Review, 18 (2), 149-160.

Bovet, S. F. (1995). "Guideposts for going online," Public Relations Journal, 51 (2), 33-35.

Brett, J. M. & Okumura, T. (1998). "Inter- and intracultural negotiation: U.S. and Japanese nogotiators," Academy of Management Journal, 41(5), 495-511.

Brickman, P. (1974). Social conflict: Readings in rule structures and conflict relationships, Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

Cameron, G. T. (1997). The contingency theory of conflict management in public relations. Proceedings of the Norwegian Information Service, Oslo, Norway.

Cameron, G. T., Sallot, L. M., & Curtin, P. A. (1997). "Public relations and the production of news: Critical review and theoretical framework," Communication Year Book, 20, 111-115.

Carr, S. (1989). "How to deal with the Japanese media," Public Relations Journal, 45, 27-28.

Cathcart, D. & Cathcart, R. (1976). "A Japanese social experience and concept of groups. In L.A. Samovar & R. E. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A reader (2nd ed., pp. 58-66).

Comrie, M. (1997). "Media tactics in New Zealand's Crown health enterprises," Public Relations Review, 23 (2), 161-182.

Culbertson, H. (1996). "Introduction." In H. Culbertson, & N. Chen (Eds.), International public relations: A comparative analysis (pp. 2-13). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Curtin, P. A. (1997). "Reevaluating public relations information subsidies," Public Relations Quarterly, 23, 385-391.

Curtin, P. A., & Rhodenbough, E. (2001). "Building the news media agenda on the environment: A comparison of public relations and journalistic sources," Public Relations Review, 27(2), 179-190.

Cutlip, S. M. (1962). "The third of newspapers' content PR-inspired," Editor & Publisher, 26, 68.

Davis, A. (2000). "Public relations, news production and changing patterns of source access in the British national media," Media, Culture & Society, 22 (1), 39-60.

Detweiler, J. S. (1992). "Source power: New leverage in media relations," Public Relations Quarterly, 37 (2), 19-21.

Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive Justice: A Social Psychological Perspective. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Deutsch, M. (1994). "Constructive conflict resolution: Principles, training and research," Journal of Social Issues, 50, 13-32.

Dimitrova, A. K. (1998). "From proletariat to people: Public relations metamorphosis of the Bulgarian communist party and its political tribune before the first free multi-party elections in 1990," East European Quarterly, 32(2), 167-196.

Dwyer, F. R., & Oh, S. (1987). "Output sector munificence effects on the internal political economy of marketing channels," Journal of Marketing, 51, 11-27.

Ferguson, D. P. (1998). "From communist control to glasnost and back?: Media freedom and control in the former Soviet Union," Public Relations Review, 24 (2), 165-183.

Fishman, M. (1980). Manufacturing the news. Austin: University of Texas Press.

Gandy, O. H., Jr. (1982). Beyond agenda setting: Information subsidies and public policy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Ganesan, S. (1993). "Negotiation strategies and the nature of channel relationships," Journal of Marketing Research, 30(2), 183-203.

Gans, H. J. (1979). Deciding what's news; A study of CBS Evening News, NBC Nightly News, Newsweek, and Time. NY: Vintage.

Garrison, B. (1995). "On-line services as reporting tools: Daily newspaper use of commercial databases in 1994," Newspaper Research Journal, 16 (4), 74-86.

Garrison, B. (1997). "On-line services, Internet in 1995 newsrooms," Newspaper Research Journal, 18 (3-4), 79-93.

Garrison, B. (2000). "Journalists' perceptions of online information-gathering problems," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 77 (3), 500-514.

Giber, W., & Johnson, W. (1961). "The City hall beat: A study of reporter and source roles," Journalism Quarterly, 38 (2), 289-297.

Grunig, J. E., Grunig, L. A., Sriramesh, K., Huang, Y. H., & Lyra, A. (1995). "Models of public relations in an international setting," Journal of Public Relations Research, 7 (3), 163-186.

Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Gudykunst, W. B (1993). Communication in Japan and the United States, Albany: State University of New York Press.

Ha, L., & James, E. L. (2000). " The real stated of public relations on the World Wide Web," The Public Relations Strategist, 6 (3), 30-33.

Hall, E. (1976). Beyond Culture. New York: Doubleday.

Hall, E. (1982). "Context and meaning." In L. Samovar & R. Porter (Eds.), Intercultural communication: A Reader (3rd.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Haug, M., & Koppang, H. (1997). "Lobbying and public relations in European context," Public Relations Review, 23 (3), 233-248.

Herdon, N. C., Fraedrich, J. P., & Yeh, Q. (2001). "An investigation of moral values and the ethical content of the corporate culture: Taiwanese versus U.S. sales people,"  Journal of Business Ethics, 30(1), 73.

Hierbert, R. E. (1992). "Public relations and mass communication in Eastern Europe," Public Relations Review, 18 (2), 177- 188.

Hierbert, R. E. (1992). "Global public relations in a post-communist world: A new model," Public Relations Review, 19 (2), 117-127.

Hierbert, R. E. (1994). "Advertising and public relations in transition from communism: The case of Hungary, 1989-1994," Public Relations Review, 20 (4), 357-373.

Hill L. N., & White C. (2000). "Public relations professionals' perception of the World Wide Web as a communication tool." Public Relations Review, 31 (1), 68-74.

Hocker, J. L. & Wilmot, W. W. (1991). International conflict (3rd ed.), Dubuque, IA: Wm. C. Brown, p. 12.

Hofstede, G. (1980). Cultures consequences: International difference in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishing.

Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw_Hill.

Holtz, S. (1999). Public relations on the net. NY: Amacom.

Howard, C. M., & Mathews, W. K. (1994). Online deadline: Managing media relations (2nd ed.). Prospect Heights, Ill: Waveland Press.

Huang, Y. H. (1994). Toward the contemporary Chinese philosophy of public relations perspective from the theory of global public relations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association.

Huang, Y. H. (1997). Public relations strategies, relational outcomes, and conflict management strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

Huang, Y. H. (2000). "The personal influence model and Gao Guanxi in Taiwan Chinese public relations," Public Relations Review, 26 (2), 219-237.

Johnson, M. A. (1997). "Public relations professionals and technology: Professional perspectives," Journal of Public Relations Research, 9 (3), 213-236.

Kagan, S., Knight, G., & Martinez-Romero, S. (1982). "Culture and the development of conflict resolution style," Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 13, 43-59.

Kanso, A. & Nelson, R. A. (2002). "Overcoming biases, stereotypes, and false inferences: Corss-cultural frameworks for Arab andn American public relations practitioners," Paper presented at the annual meeting of the annual meeting of the International, Interdisciplinary Public Relations Research, Miami.

Kaur, K. (1997). The impact of privatization on public relations and the role of public relations management in the privatization process: A qualitative analysis of the Malaysian case. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

Killman, R. H. & Thomas, K. W. (1977). "Developing a forced-choice measure of conflict  handling behavior: The "Mode" instrument, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 309-325.

Kopenhaver, L. L. (1985). "Aligning values of professionals and journalists," Public Relations Review, 11 (2), 34-42.

Lasica, J. D. (1997). "Time to freshen up online newspapers," American Journalism Review, 19 (5), 48-58.

Lasica, J. D. (1997). "Get it fast, but get it right," American Journalism Review, 19 (8), 64-74.

Laue, J. (1995). "The emergence and institutionalization of third party roles in conflict." In D. Sandole & I. Sandole-Staroste (Eds.), Conflict management and problem solving: interpersonal to international applications. New York: New York University Press.

Lee, I. (2002). Cross-cultural negotiation, Columbia, MO: University of Missouri-Columbia.

Lee, H., & Rogan, R. (1991). A cross-cultural comparison of organizational conflict management behaviors, International Journal of Conflict Management, 2, 181-199.

Levine, D. (1985). The flight from ambiguity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Lyra, A. (1991). Public relations in Greece: Models, roles and gender. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Maryland, College Park.

Middleberg, D., & Ross, S. S. (1999). "Journalists' Internet access approaches universality." [Online]. Available : http://www.middleberg.com/page1.htm

Middleberg, D., & Ross, S. S. (2000). The Middleberg/Ross survey of media in the wired world, NY: Middleberg Euro RSCG.

Morely, M. (1998). How to manage your global reputation: A guide to the dynamics of international public relations. Washington Square, NY: New York University Press.

Oginianova, E. (1998). The value of journalistic identity on the World Wide Web. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Baltimore, MD.

Noack, D. (1999,  April). "It's official the Net is just another tool," Editor & Publisher, 22-24.

O'Keefe, S. (1997). Publicity on the Internet. New York : John Wiley & Sons.

Porter, L. V., Sallot, L. M., & Cameron, G. T. (2001). "New technologies and public relations: Exploring professionals' use of online resources to earn a seat at the management table," Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78 (1), 172-190.

Plowman, K. D. (1995). Congruence between public relations and conflict resolution: Negotiating power in the organization. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

Plowman, K. D., ReVelle, C., Meirovich, S., Pien, M., Stemple, R., Sheng, V., & Fay, K. (1995). Walgreens: A case study in health care issues and conflict resolution. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7, 231-258.

Plowman, K. D. (1998). "Power in conflict for public relations," Journal of Public Relations Research, 10(4), 237-261.

Prutt, D. G. & Rubin, J. Z. (1986). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate and settlement. New York: Random House.

Rahim, M. A. & Bonoma, T. V. (1979). "Managing organizational conflict: A model for diagnosis and intervention," Psychological Reports, 44, 1323-1344.

Rosten, L. C. (1937). The Washington correspondents. NY: Arno.

Rubin, J. Z., Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate and settlement(2nd ed.), NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Ryan, M., & Martinson, D. L. (1984). "Ethical values, the flow of journalistic information and public relations persons," Journalism Quarterly, 61 (1), 27-34.

Ryan, M., & Martinson, D. L. (1988). "Journalists and public relations professionals: Why the antagonism?" Journalism Quarterly, 65 (1), 131-140.

Ryan, M. (1999). The World Wide Web, online resources and public relations professionals: What they use and what they recommend. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication Annual Convention, New Orleans, L.A.

Sachsman, D. B. (1976). "Public relations influence on coverage of environment in San Francisco Area," Journalism Quarterly, 53 (1), 54-60.

Sallot, L. M., Steinfatt, T. M., & Salwen M. B. (1998). "Journalists' and public relations professionals' news values: Perceptions and cross-perceptions," Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75 (2), 366-377.

Saunders, M. D. (1989). "Ethical dilemmas in public relations: Perceptions of Florida professionals," Florida Communication Journal, 17 (2), 23-27.

Schoemaker, P., & Reese, S. (1991). Mediating the messages: Theories of influence on mass media content. NY: Longman.

Shin, J. H., &  Cameron, G. T. (2001). A look at personal influence in media relations: Informal relations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the annual meeting of the International, Interdisciplinary Public Relations Research, Miami.

Shin, J. H. & Cameron, G. T. (2002). The potential of online media relations to address false consensus between source and reporter: A coorientational analysis of PR professionals and journalists in Korea. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Communication Association, Seoul, 2002.

Sigal, L. V. (1973). Reporters and officials. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.

Singer, J. B. (1996). "Virtual anonymity: Online accountability and the virtuous virtual journalist," Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 11 (2), 95-107.

Singh, R., & Smyth, R. (2000). "Australian public relations: Status at the turn of the 21st century," Public Relations Review, 26 (4), 387-397.

Sriramesh, K. (1992). "Social culture and public relations: Ethnographic evidence from India," Public Relations Review, 18 (2), 201-212.

Sriramesh, K. & Takasaki, M. (1999). "The impact of culture on Japanese public relations," Journal of Communication Management, 3 (4), 337-352.

Sriramesh, K., Kim, Y., & Takasaki, M. (1999). "Public relations in three Asian cultures: An analysis," Public Relations Review, 11 (4), 271-292.

Taylor, M. (2000). "Media relations: A role for public relations in building civil society," Public Relations Review, 26 (1), 1-10.

Taylor, M. (2000). "Cultural variance as a challenge to global public relations: A case study of the Coca-Cola scare in Europe," Public Relations Review, 26 (3), 277-290.

Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (1999). "Challenging assumptions of international public relations: When government is the most important public," Public Relations Review, 25 (2), 131-141.

Thomsen, S. R. (1995). "Using online databases in corporate issues management," Public Relations Review, 21 (2), 103-123.

Thomsen, S. R. (1996). "@Work in cyberspace: Exploring professional use of the PRForum," Public Relations Review, 22 (2), 115-132.

Thomson Corporation Company (1999). "Journalism's online credibility gap," Business Week, 36 (5), 122.

Ting-Toomey, S. (1985). "Toward a theory of conflict and culture." In W. Gudykunst, L. Stewart & S. Ting-Toomey (Eds.), Communication, culture and organizational processes. Bevery Hills, CA: Sage.

Triandis, H. C. (1972). The analysis of subjective culture, New York: Hohn Wiley & Sons.

Tse, D. K., Franis, J., & Walls, J. (1994). "Cultural differences in conducting intra- and intercultural negotiations: A Sino-Canadian comparison," Journal of International Business Studies, 25(3), 537-556.

Turk, J. V. (1985). "Information subsidies and influence," Public Relations Review, 11 (3), 10-25.

Turk, J. V. (1986). "Public relations' influence on the news," Newspaper Research Journal, 7, 15-27.

Turk, J. V. (1988). "Public relations' influence on the news." In R. E. Hiebert (Ed.), Precision Pubic Relations (pp.  224-239). NY: Longman.

VanLeuven, J. K., & Pratt, C. B. (1996). "Public relations role: Realities in Asia and in Africa South of the Sahara." In H. Culbertson, & N. Chen (Eds.), International Public Relations: A comparative analysis (pp. 93-106). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Vercic, D., Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1996). "Global and specific principles of public relations: Evidence from Slovenia." In H. Culbertson, & N. Chen (Eds.), International public relations: A comparative analysis (pp. 31-65). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Walther, J. B. (1994). "Anticipated ongoing interaction versus channel effects on relational communication in computer-mediated interaction," Human Communication Research, 20, 473-501, 475.

Wakefield, R. (1996). "Interdisciplinary theoretical foundations for international public relations." In H. Culbertson, & N. Chen (Eds.) International public relations: A comparative analysis (pp. 17-30). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.

Wee, C., Tan, S., & Chew, K. (1996). "Organizational response to public relations: An empirical study of firms in Singapore," Public Relations Review, 22 (3), 259-278.

Whalther, J. B. (1996). "Computer-mediated communication: Impersonal, interpersonal, and hyperpersonal interaction," Communication Research, 23 (1), 342-369.

Winfield, B. H., Mizuno, T., & Beaudoin, C. E. (2000). "Confucianism, Collectivism and Constitutions: Press systems in China and Japan," Communication Law and Policy, 5 (3), 323-347.

Zaharna, R. S. (1995). "Understanding cultural preferences of Arab communication patterns," Public Relations Review, 21 (3), 241-255.

Zetline, M. (1995). "Massaging the Asian image: Despite the government's grip on the press, public relations is proliferating in China, attracting Chinese companies that want a sophisticated international profile," Management Review, 84 (8), 20-25.






























APPENDIX

Table 1
Demographic Statistics  (N=339)

KPR
KJOUR
USPR
USJOUR
TOTAL


percent
percent
percent
percent
frequency
percent
Age
Less than 30
30.2
14.9
9.4
10.6
60
19.5
30 - less than 40
53.5
44.8
40.6
31.9
140
45.6
40 - less than 50
14.0
40.3
31.3
29.8
79
25.7
50 - less than 60
2.3
0.0
18.8
21.3
25
8.1
More than 60
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.4
3
1.0

Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
307
100.0
Gender
Male
68.2
88.1
46.9
55.3
203
66.1
Female
31.8
11.9
53.1
44.7
104
33.9

Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
307
100.0
Education
Under college graduate
1.6
1.5
84.8
2.1
4
1.3
College graduate
73.4
68.7
15.2
80.9
234
76.0
Master
24.2
28.4
0.0
14.9
67
21.8
Ph.D.
0.8
1.5
0.0
2.1
3
1.0

Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
308
100.0
Work
Agency (Newspaper)
40.5
76.1
12.1
89.6
-
-
Corporation (Broadcast)
42.1
7.5
30.3
6.3
-
-
Non-profit (Radio)
14.3
1.5
42.4
4.2
-
-
Private (Wire)
0.0
11.9
0.0
0.0
-
-
Government (Magazine)
2.4
3.0
9.1
0.0
-
-
Other
0.8
0.0
6.1
0.0
-
-

Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
307
100.0
Position
Staff level (Reporter)
33.3
64.4
66.7
33.3
136
47.4
Managing level (Editor)
64.9
35.6
24.2
58.3
139
48.4
Other
1.8
0.0
9.1
8.3
12
4.2

Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
287
100.0
Working year
Less than 5
51.7
20.7
30.3
6.3
95
33.0
5 - less than 10
29.3
27.6
21.2
22.9
75
26.0
10 - less than 15
13.8
36.2
21.2
10.4
56
19.4
15 - less than 20
3.4
15.5
9.1
16.7
27
9.4
20 - less than 25
1.7
0.0
9.1
10.4
13
4.5
25-less than 30
0.0
0.0
6.1
18.8
13
4.5
30-more than 30
0.0
0.0
3.0
14.6
9
3.1

Total
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
288
100.0
Note: Percent represents valid percent.





Table 2
Correlations of Significant Functions and Discriminating Variables

FUNCTION
1: Culture
2: Profession
interviews_ethical
0.222*
0.011
telephone contact_ethical
0.184*
0.028
fax/mail/wire/courier_ethical
0.184*
-0.063
press tours_ethical
0.180*
-0.107
golf/gathering_useful
-0.176*
-0.015
press conferences_ethical
0.164*
-0.020
interviews_professional
0.158*
-0.017
speeches_ethical
0.148*
-0.040
fax/mail/courier_professional
0.148*
-0.038
multimedia press kits_ethical
0.138*
-0.041
drink/dinner/luncheon_ethical
0.136*
0.049
telephone contact_professional
0.133*
0.052
interviews_credible
0.129*
0.008
golf/gathering_influential
-0.127*
-0.059
preference for online use
0.126*
0.085
fax/mail/courier_credible
0.125*
-0.032
interviews_useful
0.124*
0.026
fax/mail/courier_useful
0.118*
-0.056
official proceedings_ethical
0.109*
0.033
speeches_professional
0.106*
-0.066
private meetings_ethical
0.100*
0.076
drink/dinner/luncheon_professional
0.097*
0.039
online discussion_credible
-0.090*
-0.026
e-mail news release_ethical
0.087*
-0.050
press conferences_professional
0.086*
0.027
interviews_influential
0.085*
-0.008
background briefings_ethical
0.085*
-0.026
online discussion_professional
-0.069*
0.015
background briefings_credible
0.066*
-0.002
online discussion_ethical
-0.063
-0.012
background briefings_useful
0.062*
0.033
speeches_credible
0.060*
-0.022
streaming clips_credible
-0.057*
-0.048
Internet conference_ethical
0.038*
-0.034
background briefings_influential
0.031*
0.012
work
              0.063
-0.248*
working year
  0.164
0.198*
website pressrooms_useful
0.069
-0.164*
multimedia press kits_influential
-0.012
-0.162*
website pressrooms_influential
0.066
-0.161*
multimedia press kits_useful
-0.015
-0.160*
website pressrooms_credible
0.108
-0.158*
website pressrooms_professional
0.081
-0.149*
streaming clips_influential
-0.044
-0.136*
homepages_professional
0.101
-0.135*
website pressrooms_ethical
0.075
-0.131*
press tours_useful
-0.026
-0.128*
streaming clips_useful
-0.079
-0.125*
homepages_ethical
0.057
-0.118*
age
0.105
0.117*
Internet conference_useful
-0.013
-0.112*
e-mail news releases_influential
0.017
-0.112*
homepages_useful
0.096
-0.109*
Internet conference_influential
-0.027
-0.108*
press tours_credible
0.015
-0.107*
Internet conference_professional
0.018
-0.107*
press tours_professional
0.081
-0.101*
e-mail news releases_professional
0.073
-0.098*
homepages_credible
0.092
-0.097*
homepages_influential
0.040
-0.097*
e-mail news releases_useful
0.009
-0.092*
press tours_influential
-0.017
-0.091*
speeches_influential
0.055
-0.089*
private meetings_useful
0.000
0.089*
multimedia press kits_credible
0.060
-0.085*
Internet confererence_credible
0.017
-0.082*
streaming clips_professional
-0.053
-0.075*
press conferences_credible
0.060
-0.071*
fax/mail/courier_influential
0.025
-0.068*
press conferences_influential
-0.002
-0.068*
golf/gathering_ethical
-0.025
0.067*
private meetings_credible
0.052
0.065*
streaming clips_ethical
0.020
-0.040*
drink/dinner/luncheon_credible
0.029
0.039*
drink/dinner/luncheon_influential
-0.011
-0.022*
Notes:  Pooled within-groups correlations between discriminating variables and standardized
              canonical discriminant functions; Variables ordered by absolute size of correlation within function.
         * Largest absolute correlation between each variable and any discriminant function.










Figure 1
Canonical Discriminant Function Centroids in Discriminant Space


  [--- WMF  Graphic Goes Here  ---]


















Figure 2
The Conflict Management Typology of Media Relations in Korea and in the U.S.





Korean
Media Relations












American
Media Relations
Implicit
Collectivistic
High PD
Low UA
Polychronic
Interpersonal





           Comprising                           Competing
       Problem-solving                      Confronting

Explicit
Individual
Low PD*
High UA*
Monochronic
Mediated



Notes:  * PD: Power Distance; UA: Uncertainty Avoidance