Content-Type: text/html

  This paper was presented at the Association for Education in Journalism
and Mass Communication in Toronto, Canada, August 2004.
        If you have questions about this paper, please contact the author
directly. If you have questions about the archives, email
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0411C%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D0%26P%3D5807944%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Dus-ascii" >[log in to unmask]</a> For an explanation of the subject line, send email to
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0411C%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D0%26P%3D5807944%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Dus-ascii" >[log in to unmask]</a> with just the four words, "get help info aejmc," in the
body (drop the "").
(Oct 2004)
Thank you.
Elliott Parker
************************************************************************


A Theoretical Perspective on "Fear"
As an Organizational Motivator for
Initiating Public Relations Activities


Jangyul Robert Kim, APR
Doctoral Student
College of Journalism and Communication
University of Florida
G035 Weimer Hall
PO Box 118400
(352-846-1060)
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0411C%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D0%26P%3D5807944%26B%3D--%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Dus-ascii" >[log in to unmask]</a>






A Theoretical Perspective on "Fear"
As an Organizational Motivator for Initiating Public Relations Activities





Abstract




This exploratory study identifies the correlation between fear and the
public relations activities of an organization. A survey of forty public
relations professionals in Florida was conducted Fear was identified as a
critical causal factor that motivates an organization to initiate or
undertake public relations activities. The effect of fear on public
relations activities of an organization differed by public relations area,
by degree of fear, by public/stakeholder and by type of fear/threat.








Introduction

Fear: An internal emotional reaction composed of psychological and
physiological dimensions that may be aroused when a serious and personally
relevant threat is perceived
(Witte, Meyer and Martell, 2001, p.20).

Fear has long been perceived as one of the strongest and most effective
factors that affects people's attitude and behavior. Thanks to its
potential and utility, fear appeal, "a persuasive communication that tries
to scare people into changing their attitudes by conjuring up negative
consequences that will occur if they do not comply with the message
recommendations" (Perloff, 2003, p.187), has been widely used by
communicators, particularly in health communication, political
communication, and crisis management. A plethora of studies on fear appeal
have been undertaken over the past decades including studies on the maximum
effect of fear appeal (Janis, 1967; McGuire, 1968, 1969), on the mechanism
underlying reactions to fear appeal (Leventhal, 1980, 1971), on why fear
appeals sometimes fail (Janis, 1967), on the conditions under which fear
appeals worked (Rogers, 1975, 1983), and on the two parallel processes by
which fear appeals can influence attitudes (Witte, 1992, 1998).
However, all of these studies have been focused on individual levels, i.e.,
on how to influence individuals or an aggregate composition of individuals,
and none of them has ever attempted to apply fear appeal at the
organizational level. In reality, there are plenty of cases when fear
motivated an organization to initiate public relations activities to manage
that fear. On the other hand, rare studies have been undertaken on "why" an
organization deploys any public relations activities. Why? Certain factors
must compel an organization, whether it be for-profit or non-profit, to
conduct public relations activities. What could they be?
Based on these curiosities, this study assumes "fear" as a critical causal
factor of public relations activities. In addition, this study attempts to
identify if fear affects the public relations activities of an
organization, and if there are any correlations between fear and the public
relations activities of an organization, by degree of fear, public
relations area, type of fear and types of publics/ stakeholders. To date,
no study has attempted to identify the correlations between fear and the
public relations activities of an organization. This study hopes to
contribute to the expansion of the realm of public relations study by
applying a psychological perspective, and to contribute to a more
diversified and in-depth understanding of the pubic relations of an
organization.

Literature Review
Public Relations and Fear
Over the past decades, various studies were conducted on public relations
covering extensive areas including research, practice, evaluation, and
theory developments. In summary, Ferguson (1984) and Sallot et. al (2003)
conducted introspective studies that categorized and analyzed the existing
studies. Even though the topics in these studies covered most of the
general interests in public relations area, no study has attempted to
identify fear as a motivational factor for an organization to conduct
public relations activities.
For instance, Ferguson (1984) conducted an early introspective study by
analyzing 171 abstracts or articles published in the Public Relation Review
over a period of ten years from 1975 to 1984. She categorized them into
three categories: a) introspective articles such as education in public
relations, ethics and social responsibility, history of public relations,
and profession of public relations; b) application and practice articles
such as management in public relations, implementing programs and
campaigns, issues and methods of applied research, organizational
communication, and social issues/issues management/new communication
technologies); and  c) public relations theory development articles
(Ferguson, 1984).
Based on Ferguson's research, 20 years later, Sallot et al. (2003)
conducted a more comprehensive and elaborate introspective investigation of
public relations articles, categorizing 748 public relations abstracts or
articles that were published in Public Relations Review, Journal of Public
Relations Research and Public Relations Research Annual since their
inception through the year 2003 (Sallot et al., 2003). They established
three categories, a) introspective articles, b) practice/application of
public relations, and c) theory development in public relations.
Of the 748 articles, 39.5% were introspective articles including the
profession of public relations, pedagogy/education in public relations,
history of public relations, international public relations, women and
minorities, scholarly research, and image/reputation/impression
management.  Thirty nine percent (39%) were related to practice/application
of public relations, such as implementing programs/campaigns, social
issues/issues management, applied research issues and methodologies,
organizational communication, management in public relations, crisis
response/communication, new communication technologies, legal issues,
integrated marketing communications, ethics (in practice) and
image/reputation/impression management. The remaining 19.8% were related to
theory development in public relations, such as excellence
theory/symmetrical communication/Grunig's model, public relationships,
crisis response theory, critical/cultural theory, ethics/social
responsibility, academic versus applied research, situational theory,
women's studies/feminist school/gender/diversity/minority, organizational
communication, international public relations, role theory/models,
rhetorical underpinnings, persuasion/public opinion, fundraising, risk
communication, social issues and issues management, contingency theory,
complexity theory and general social science theory (Sallot et al., 2003,
P.42).
As previously mentioned, most studies on public relations have focused on
practical aspects or theories, and have not questioned why an organization
is deploying public relations. Moreover, no study has ever been conducted
to identify the causal factors, such as fear, that motivate an organization
to initiate or undertake public relations activities or that affect the
public relations activities of an organization.
Fear Appeal Models
To date, abundant studies have been conducted on fear and fear appeal, in
particular, in the health communication area targeted at the individual
level. Among them, the Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) developed by
Witte in 1992 is known to be the most comprehensive and persuasive fear
appeal model (Perloff, 2003). EPPM, however, was not an original study but
an integrated model based on previous studies including Fear-as-required
Drive Model (Janis, 1967), the Parallel Process Model (PPM) (Leventhal,
1970, 1971) and the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) (Rogers, 1975, 1983)
(Witte, 1992)

4/
Fear-as-acquired Drive Model.  Janis (1967) studied the effect of fear
appeal on audiences and argued in his fear-as-acquired drive model (Janis,
1967) that a certain degree of fear arousal was the most effective
persuasion communication that could result in the proposed objectives of a
message. Too much fear arousal would lead to maladaptive outcomes while
fear appeals that were too weak would not arouse any reaction. He asserted
that there is an inverted-U shaped relation between fear and message
acceptance by audiences (Janis, 1967). This model was not supported
(Higbee, 1969; Leventhal and Thembly, 1968) as studies found that increases
in fear arousal produced increases in message accommodation (Rogers, 1983).
Parallel Response Model (or Parallel Process Model).  Developed by
Leventhal (1970, 1971), the parallel response model or the parallel process
model (Leventhal, Safer & Panagis, 1983, p.4) offered insights into the
mechanisms underlying reactions to fear appeals by distinguishing cognitive
processes and emotional processes. Leventhal argued that people would
engage in danger control if they perceived the threatening messages (e.g.,
smoking causes lung cancer) as manageable by changing their attitude,
intention or behavior (e.g., quitting smoking) to accommodate the messages,
whereas they would engage in fear control (e.g., continuing smoking) if
they perceived the threatening messages as unmanageable or uncontrollable
by denying the messages (Leventhal, 1970, 1971). This model, however, was
criticized because it was not able to specify the time when one process
dominated over the other, or to specify which factors elicited the
different processes (Beck & Frankel, 1981; Rogers, 1975; Witte, 1992).
Protection Motivation Theory (PMT).  Rogers (1975, 1983) demonstrated the
conditions under which fear appeals worked by specifying the message
components, i.e., source of information, and cognitive mediating processes
in fear appeal studies. In this model, there are four persuasive message
factors: magnitude of noxiousness that leads to perceived severity (e.g.,
AIDS is fatal), probability of occurrence that leads to perceived
susceptibility (e.g., increased risk of HIV contraction), self-efficacy
depictions that leads to perceived self-efficacy (condoms are effective
protectors against AIDS) and response efficacy depictions that leads to
perceived response efficacy (e.g., I'm able to use condoms to effectively
prevent AIDS) (Rogers, 1975, 1983). However, this model only focused on the
danger control process argued by Leventhal (1970) and did not explain the
fear control process. In addition, this model was not able to prove the
specific interactions among the four variables (Witte, 1992).
Extended Protection Motivation Model (EPPM).  The extended protection
motivation model developed by Witte (1992) integrated and complemented the
previous fear appeal studies that explained the reason why some fear
appeals worked whereas others failed (Witte, 1992). Based on the parallel
response model (Leventhal, 1970, 1971), this model stressed two parallel
processes by which fear appeals can influence attitudes (Perloff, 2003).
In this model, how people respond to fear appeals depends on their
assessment of the threat and their perceived efficacy. If they perceive
fear or threat as manageable (e.g., heart attacks can be prevented by
exercise), i.e., if perceived efficacy is higher than perceived threat,
then they accept the message and react according to the recommended
messages (e.g., exercise more). This is called danger control. However, if
they perceive the fear or threat as serious but not manageable even though
they follow the recommended messages (e.g., even though I exercise, it
cannot protect me from heart attack as I am obese), i.e., if perceived
threat is higher than perceived efficacy, then, instead of trying to cope
with fear, they deny or ignore fear and refrain from doing any action
(e.g., do not exercise, but eat a lot). This is called fear control. In
other words, when danger control processes are dominating, individuals
respond to the danger, not to fear, whereas when fear control processes are
dominating, they respond to their fear, not to the danger (Witte, 1992,
p.338). From the communicator's standpoint, a fear appeal works if it leads
a person into danger control whereas it does not work if it leads a person
into fear control (Perloff, 2003). This model has been proven accurate
across many populations and topics (Witte, 1998).
Overall, the affect of fear appeal has been studied and utilized by many
communication scholars and professionals. In particular, most studies have
been in the health communication area regarding such areas as anti-smoking
campaigns, anti-drug campaigns, AIDS prevention campaigns, anti-drinking
campaigns and the like. However, health communication is not the only area
where fear appeal is being utilized.
Fear Appeal Adoption in Other Public Relations Area
In addition to health communication, fear appeal is being broadly utilized
in various areas of public relations such as crisis management, issue
management, community relations, political communications and even internal
communication. For example, a government agency may utilize fear appeals to
educate people about the importance of preparedness for a tornado or
hurricane by showing the citizens living in that area vivid pictures or
documentary films via cable TV or newspapers. Also, by showing how to
prepare for these disasters, they may be able to achieve their crisis
management objective of minimizing unnecessary loss of life and property.
An energy company that wants to construct a nuclear power station in a
certain area may need to undertake issue management to eliminate possible
fear of the citizens living in that area by assuring safety to them that
the nuclear power station is neither dangerous nor hazardous to them before
they actually start construction. A company may need community relations to
build a friendly relationship with opinion leaders or celebrities in that
area by sponsoring one of the popular cultural or sports events, or
building a kids' science museum in that area. In the political
communication area, a Republican presidential candidate may criticize a
Democrat candidate by stressing the importance of the safety of America. He
may assert the righteousness or inevitableness of the Baghdad bombing by
the United States Air Force by reminding people (e.g., by arousing fear) of
the September 11th attack.  A managing director of a corporation may
utilize fear in employee relations or internal communications by requesting
her employees to abide by a new code of ethics that defines a gift worth
ten dollars as bribery, or ask them to participate in a certain friendly
marathon competition by insinuating the anticipated disadvantages they
would have if they do not participate. In all of these cases, fear appeal
may be an underlying motivator.
Fear Appeal Adoption on an Organizational Level
As previously mentioned, fear appeal has been utilized not only in health
communication but also in various areas of public relations including
crisis communication, issue management, community relations, political
communication and employee relations. Most of the existing studies on fear
and fear appeal have focused on an individual level, i.e., on how to
influence an individual or a group composed of individuals from the
standpoint of communicators.
On the other hand, there are certain cases when fear appeals are utilized
to affect an organization but not individuals. Just like an organization
leverages fear appeal to affect or influence the attitude or behavior of an
individual or an aggregate of individuals, a certain organization or even
an individual may use fear appeal as a tool of influencing another
organization. For example, an activist group such as Greenpeace is one of
the typical activist groups that leverages fear appeal to achieve their
goal of environment protection by influencing corporations that may
contaminate the environment or pollute the clean air. The media is another
group that utilizes fear appeal against organizations such as corporations,
government agencies and even individuals such as politicians and
celebrities. In other words, even though they do not directly use fear
appeal or threat to get information on them, these organizations, including
their CEOs or the public relations practitioners in these organizations may
be afraid of possible negative news, and may try to provide the media with
positive information.

Hypotheses
Working Definition of Concepts
To eliminate any possible misunderstandings or unnecessary argumentations,
fear, fear appeal and threat are defined as follows:
Fear:   An organization's internal emotional or reasonable reaction composed
of a psychological dimension that may be aroused when a threat that is
serious and relevant to that organization is perceived
Fear Appeal:    A persuasive communication that tries to scare people in an
organization into changing the organization's attitudes by conjuring up
negative consequences that will occur to that organization if they do not
comply with the message recommendations
Threat:         A danger or harm to an organization that exists in the environment
whether people in an organization know it or not.
Based on the current review of relevant literature, this preliminary study
hopes to determine whether fear affects the public relations activities of
an organization. To measure these correlations, the following hypotheses
are tested:
H.      Fear will affect the public relations activities of an organization.
H1.     The degree of fear that affects the public relations activities of an
organization will vary according to public relations area.
H2.     The degree of fear that affects the public relations activities of an
organization will vary according to the types of fear.
H3.     The degree of fear that affects the pubic relations activities of an
organization will vary according to the types of publics/stakeholders (of
an organization).

Research Method
To test the above hypotheses, an internet survey was distributed via email,
as it enabled quick, easy, and accurate gathering of survey information
with minimal cost as compared to a traditional paper and pencil method
(Barber, McGlade, Milot, and Scales 1996; Kelly-Milburn and Milburn 1995;
Landis 1995). The survey was conducted in March 2004 and included public
relations professionals who were either members of the Public Relations
Society of America, Florida chapter, or Florida Public Relations
Association, mostly based in cities in Florida including Miami, Orlando,
Jacksonville, Tampa, and Gainesville (40 expert respondents).
To test the correlation between fear and public relations activities, the
degree of fear was categorized into four groups: no effect, weak effect,
moderate effect, and high effect. The public relations areas that would be
affected by fear were divided into eleven groups: crisis management, issue
management, reputation management, community relations, philanthropy, media
relations, day-to-day public relations activities, investor relations,
employee relations, government relations, and NGO/activist relations. The
public/stakeholders were divided into seven groups: media, consumers,
NGO/activist groups, investors, employees and general public. Finally, fear
was categorized into five threat types: a) natural and uncontrollable
threats such as a storm blowing down a building or a plane crashing into
your factory, b) accidents that an organization could control such as the
explosion of a boiler or a leak of polluting material, c) community,
consumer, competitor-related threats such as activist group protests,
unfair trade, lawsuit, or consumer complaints, d) media-related threats
such as wrong information, rumors, or negative reporting and e) internal
threats such as employee strike, CEO scandal, sexual harassments or
embezzlement. Except for the scale regarding the degree of fear, each was
measured using seven-point scales ranging from "no effect at all (or
never)" to "very high effect (or very often)".

Results
Fear was identified as a critical causal factor that prompts an
organization to initiate or undertake public relations activities. In other
words, one of the major reasons why an organization is conducting public
relations activities is to manage fear. Of the forty respondents, 78%
agreed that fear affects public relations with either a strong effect
(36%), moderate effect (23%) or weak effect (18%).
H1.     The degree of fear that affects the public relations activities of an
organization

will vary according to public relations area.

        To test the correlation between the degree of fear and public relations
activities, the degree of perceived fear was categorized into two groups:
'No effect at all' group and 'Effect' group that was sub-divided into 'weak
effect', 'moderate effect' and 'strong effect'. The actual public relations
activities by area were compared to identify if the perceived fear really
affected the public relations activities of the organization. As shown
below, all eleven public relations areas were affected by fear. The most
strongly affected areas were crisis management (F=70.45, R2=.858, p-value
<.01), followed by issue management (F=18.68, R2=.615, p<.01) and media
relations (F=11.91, R2=.512, p<.01). In terms of undertaking actual public
relations activities affected by perceived fear, media relations (F=17.25,
R2=.596, p<.01) was the most prominent followed by issue management
(F=9.28, R2=.443, p<.01) and crisis management (F=9.06, R2=.437, p<.01).
Therefore, H1 was supported (See table 1).  In addition, respondents
selected crisis management (63%), reputation (52%), media relations (55%),
and issue management (52%) as the areas that were affected most by fear,
whereas they selected Philanthropy (13%) and NGO/activist group relations
(13%) as the least affected areas.
______________________

Insert table 1 about here
______________________
H2.     The degree of fear that affects the public relations activities of an
organization

        will vary according to the types of fear/threat.

        As the pool of potential fear/treat types contains five explanatory
variables, use of a "best" set algorithm may not be relevant in testing
this hypothesis.  Therefore, in order to develop the best subset of
fear/treat types, this study used a stepwise regression procedure. Among
the five threat/fear types, community, consumer-related threats explained
the importance of crisis management (t=5.50, p<.01) and investor relations
(t=3.96, p<.01) with an R-square of 85%. In terms of activities, as
response variables, government relations (t=4.30, p<.01) and media
relations (t=2.96, p<.01) were the most fully explained with R-square
values of 78%. The natural uncontrollable threats explained the importance
of philanthropy (t =4.42, p<.01) and crisis management (t =2.24, p<.05)
with an R-square of 61%.  However, in terms of executing public relations
activities, philanthropy was not included whereas issue management (t=8.38,
p<.01) was explained with an R-square of 69%. Internal threats were also
shown as important independent variables that explained NGO/activities
groups (t=5.54, p<.01) and employee relations (t=5.01, p<.01) with an
R-square of 83%. H2 was supported (see table 2).
______________________

Insert table 2 about here
______________________
H3.     The degree of fear that affects the pubic relations activities of an
organization

will vary according to the types of publics/stakeholders (of an organization).

The correlation between public relations activities and public/stakeholder
was tested using a stepwise regression analysis. The seven categories of
public/stakeholders were all reported to have certain effects on the area
of public relations activities. Among them, crisis management was most
affected by consumer (t=7.01, r2=.824, p<.01) and Ngo/activists groups
(t=3.48, r2=.824, p<.01).  Even philanthropy was affected by internal
publics such as employees (t=6.64, r2=.565, p<.01). In the case of employee
relations, it was not only positively affected by consumers (t=4.54, p<.01)
and media (t=3.33, p<.01) but also negatively affected by the general
public (t=-2.74, p<.01). In addition, there were gaps between the perceived
fear on the public relations area and actual public relations activities.
For example, even though employees are perceived as a cause of philanthropy
activity (t=6.64, p<.01), in reality, actual public relations activities
were focused on NGO/activist groups more than philanthropy. In conclusion,
H3 was supported.

    ______________________

Insert table 3 about here
______________________
As shown above, all three hypotheses were supported. There were strong
correlations among the variables as well as the existence of distinctive
correlations between fear and public relations activities by public
relations area, fear/threat type and public/stakeholder.

Discussion & Limitations
The primary goal of this study was to find out if there is any causal
relationship between fear and public relations activities. As shown above,
fear turned out to be a critical causal factor that motivates an
organization to initiate or undertake public relations activities. In
addition, it was shown that the public relations activities of an
organization is affected differently by the degree of fear/threat, type of
fear and stakeholder/public.
However, as an exploratory study that tries to understand public relations
from the psychological perspective, this study has several limitations. For
instance, even though the results are sufficiently significant, the sample
size (n=40) is fairly small and geographically confined to the state of
Florida. Therefore, a complementary survey needs to be conducted with a
nationwide sample. In this case, the items should be elaborated on to
generate more concrete correlations between variables.
Further research could be developed based on this study. For example, it is
anticipated that a development stage of fear does exist like crisis. If so,
just as an organization develops crisis management programs, it would be
necessary to develop a fear management public relations program.
Accordingly, scholars will be able to analyze the correlation of fear
management cost versus public relations expenses (i.e., when to initiate or
undertake fear management and how to evaluate the fear management result).
Base on this, it would be possible to develop a fear management index. This
index could be developed in relation with a crisis management index or
reputation management index.
In regard to the causal factors that affect the public relations activities
of an organization, other factors could be further explored. For instance,
benefit could be another critical causal factor of public relations
activities. In some sense, fear and benefit could be regarded as the two
major factors that motivate or facilitate public relations activities. This
approach will enrich the realm of public relations study enabling
interdisciplinary approach from psychological and economical aspects.
In addition, it would be possible to conduct a more elaborated study on the
correlation between fear and public relations activities by public
relations area as well as by public relations industry. The awareness of
fear and fear management strategy may vary depending on organization's
industry, organization size, CEO's characteristics, the organization's
culture as well as external conditions such as economic situation,
political and social issues, competitors' activities and stakeholders'
responses. It would be worthwhile to monitor fear over time with an
organization to see if public relations programs aimed at reducing fear are
having intended effects.
Finally, the existing fear studies focusing on the individual level could
be applied to an organizational level in more detail. For example, in EPPM,
there is a critical point where perceived threat exceeds perceived
efficacy. This critical point is where fear control processes begin to
dominate over danger control processes (Witte, 1982, p.341). It might be
possible to assume that there is a critical point for an organization to
start fear management based on the perceived degree of fear, fear stage and
fear/threat type. If the perceived threat is weak and not serious, the
organization may not start fear management. However, if the perceived
threat is serious, the organization may start fear management. In addition,
whereas crisis management or issue management is dealing with substantial
matters from a practical perspective, fear management is a more
psychologically-oriented perspective. Fear might be the underlying factor
that controls the unconsciousness of a CEO or pubic relations professionals
in an organization to initiate or undertake public relations activities.
Last but not least, it is tested that some public relations areas are more
affected by fear than other public relations areas. In this regard, the
result could be utilized by public relations practitioners in developing a
pro-active fear management program. For a public relations consultant, it
would be possible to provide her/his clients with relevant public relations
consultation according to the client's industry by identifying frequent or
potential fear types in that industry. It could be possible to persuade
her/his clients by better leveraging fear appeal.




Table 1. The Correlation between the Degree of Fear and Public Relations Area
(& Public Relations Activities)
Public Relations Area
Perceived Fear
Actual PR Activity
F
R2
F
R2
Crisis Management
70.45**
.858
9.06**
.437
Issue Management
18.68**
.615
9.28**
.443
Reputation Management
11.18**
.489
7.29**
.384
Community Relationship
7.33 **
.393
7.41**
.388
Philanthropy
6.80**
.368
3.17*
.214
Media Relations
11.91**
.512
17.25**
.596
Day-to-day PR Activities
10.33**
.470
6.05**
.342
Investor Relations
5.36**
.315
2.91*
.200
Employee Relations
7.51**
.392
6.54**
.359
Government  Relations
7.45**
.390
7.88**
.403
NGO group Activities
11.55**
.498
4.46**
.276
Note: F (3, 35), p**<0.01, & p* < 0.05


Table 2. The Stepwise Regression of Pubic Relations Area by Type of Threat/Fear

Fear/Threat Type
Public Relations Area
Actual PR Activity
t
r2
t
r2
Natural uncontrollable threats
Philanthropy
4.42**
.612
Issuemgt
  70.45**
8.38**
.687
threats
Crisismgt
2.24*
Controllable accidents
Crisismagt
4.93**
.748
Govtrelation
4.01**
.708
Cummunityrel
3.18**
Reputmgt
3.15**
Community, consumer-related threats
Crisismgt Investorrel
5.50**
3.96**
.854
Govtrelation Mediarelation
4.30**
2.96**
.782
Media-related threats
Reputmgt
5.70**
.785
Mediarelation
5.55**
.620
Employeerel
4.07**
Investrelation
2.50*
Internal threats
NGO/Activist
Employeerel
5.54**
5.01**
.827
Govtrelation
Mediarelations
3.20**
3.00**
.722
Note: t-value, p**< 0.01, & p* < 0.05





Table 3. The Stepwise Regression of Public Relations Area by Public/Stakeholder
Public Relations Area
Public/Stakeholder
Actual PR Activity
t
r2
t
r2
Crisis Management
Consumer
  70.45**
7.01**
.824
Ngo/Activist mer
  70.45**
3.53**
.655
Ngo/Activist
3.48**
Consumer
3.14**
Issue Management
Ngo/Activist
4.44**
.780
Consumer
3.75**
.677
Genpublic
3.99**
Ngo/Activist
3.27**
Reputation Management
Media
3.64**
.677
Employee
5.87**
.511
Genpublic
2.70**
Community Relationship
Genpublic
3.70**
.659
Genpublic
3.05**
.634
Employee
2.95**
Consumer
2.32*
Philanthropy
Employee
6.64**
.565
Ngo/Activist
3.40**
.260
Media Relations
Media
7.66**
.640
Consumer
4.50**
.708
Ngo/Activist
3.00**
Day-to-day PR Activities
Employee
3.94**
.653
Genpublic
5.68**
.494
Genpublic
2.69**
Investor Relations
Investor
6.16**
.756
Investor
7.10**
.604
Consumer
2.57**
Employee Relations
Consumer
4.54**
.747
Consumer
5.69**
.495
Media
3.33**
Genpublic
-2.74**
Government  Relations
Government
5.46**
.817
Consumer
4.22**
.669
Employee
2.20*
Ngo/Activist
2.27*
NGO/Activities group
Ngo/Activist
6.72**
.851
Ngo/Activist
8.83**
.764
Employee
4.65**
Genpublic
-2.26*
Note: t-value, p**< 0.01, & p* < 0.05
 References

Barber, L. J., L. T. McGlade, B. A. Milot, and J. Scales (1997). AJCN
Unplugged: Easy to Use World Wide Web Presentation of Journal Content. The
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 65 (4), 1094-1096.
Beck, K. H., & Frankel, A. (1981). A conceptualization of threat
communications and protective health behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly,
44(204-217).
Burnet, J., & Oliver, R. (1979). Fear Appeal Effects in the Field: A
Segmentaton Approach. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(May), 181-190.
Ferguson, M. A. (1984, August). Building theory in public relations:
Interorganizational relationships as a public relations paradigm. Paper
presented at the Public Relations Division, Association for Education in
Journalism and Mass Communication Annual Convention, Gainesville, FL.
Finucane, M., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., & Johnson, S. (2000). The Affect
Heuristic in Judgments of Risks and Benefits. Journal of Behavioral
Decision Making, 13(1), 1.
Jenis, I. L. (1967). Effects of fear arousal on attitude change: Recent
developments in theory and experimental research. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),
Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 166-225). New York:
Academic Press.
Kelley-Milburn, Deborah & Michael A. Milburn (1995). Cyberspace: Resources
for Psychologists on the Internet. Psychological Science, 6 (4), 203-212.
Landis, C. (1995). An Exploratory Study of Science Educators' use of the
Internet. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 4 (3), 181-190.
Leventhal, H. (1970). Findings and theory in the study of fear
communications. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 119-186). New York: Academic Press.
Leventhal, H. (1971). Fear appeals and persuasion: The differentiation of a
motivational construct. American Journal of Public Health, 61, 1208-1224.
Leventhal, H., Safer, M.A., & Panagis, D.M. (1983). The impact of
communications on the self-regulation of health beliefs, decisions, and
behavior. Health Education Quarterly, 10, 3-29.
McGuire, W. J. (1968). Personality and susceptibility to social influence.
In E. Borgatta, and W. Lambert (Ed.), Handbook of personality theory and
research (pp. 1130-1187). Chicago: Rand McNally.
McGuire, W. J. (1969). The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G.
Lindzey, and E. Aronson (Ed.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 3,
pp. 136-314). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ray, M., & Wilkie, W. (1970). Fear: The Potential of an Appeal Neglected by
Marketing. Journal of Marketing, 34(January), 54-62.
Rogers, R. W. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and
attitude change. Journal of Psychology, 91, 93-114.
Rogers, R. W., & Mewborn, C.R. (1976). Fear appeals and attitude change:
Effects of a threat's noxiousness, probability of occurrence, and the
efficacy of coping responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
34, 54-61.
Sallot, L., Lyon. L. , Acosta-Alzuru, C, & Jones, K. (2003). From Aardvark
to Zebra: A new millennium analysis of theory development in public
relations academic journals. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(1),
27-90.
White, J. (2000). Psychology and public relations. In D. Moss, D. Vercic, &
G. Warnaby (Ed.), Perspectives on Public Relations Research (1st ed., pp.
148). London: Routledge.
Witte, K. (1992). Putting the fear back into fear appeals: The extended
parallel process model. Communication Monographs, 59, 329-349.
Witte, K. (1998). Fear as Motivator, Fear as Inhibitor: Using the Extended
Parralel Process Model to Explain Fear Appral Successes and Failures. In P.
A. Andersen, and L.K.Guerrero (Ed.), Handbook of Communication and Emotion:
Research, Theory, Application and Contexts (pp. 423-450). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Witte, K., Meyer, G., & Martell, D. (2001). Effective health risk messages:
A step-by-step guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.