Situational Theory of Publics - Literature review Example

Literature Review on Situational Theory of Publics: The situational theory of publics was originally presented by Professor James E. Grunig of University of Maryland, College Park. Theory defines that publics are identified and grouped in the perspective to which they are familiar with the issue and the extent to that they do some efforts about the problem. This theory explains when people communicate and when communications aimed at people are most likely to be responsive and beneficial. Grunig says “stakeholders who are or become more aware and active can be described as publics.”. This theory will help to identify which publics within the stakeholder categories will “communicate actively, passively, or not at all about organizational decisions that affect them.”. Those publics who do not face a problem are non-publics, those who face the problem but do not recognize it as problematic are latent publics, those who recognize the problem are aware publics, and those who do something about the problem are active publics. Grunig and other researchers have used situational theory to explain the effect of communication behavior on cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors. The concepts in the theory are very close to the concepts and definitions of Dewey and Blumer. Theory has various independent variables and Problem recognition is one of those. The limit at which individuals find and face a problem is presented by this variable. As per this concept people do not stop to evaluate situations until they feel that there is a special need for situational improvement. (Witte, K., & Allen) Another variable used in this theory is of constraint recognition that is the limit to which people see their behaviors as limited by various forces and factors that are out of their own control. Such constraints can be psychological, as lack of self-efficacy; that is capable of exercising behavior required to generate a specific outcome (Witte & Allen, 2000). Constraints can also be physical, such as a lack of availability to protective gear. Information seeking is another independent variable, can also be labeled as “active communication behavior”. keenly communicating members of publics glance for information and attempt to understand it when they get hold of the information. Thus, publics members search for information become aware publics frequently than publics those do not communicate or who only route information. (Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T.). Based on Clarke and Kline's definitions, information seeking is the premeditated, "planned scanning of the environment for messages about a specified topic" While Information processing is the "unplanned discovery of a message, followed by continued processing of it". Clarke and Kline proposed that information seeking and processing behaviours lead individuals to use different communication [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 1 OMITTED] media. Information seeking generally has been defined as interpersonal discussion and specialized booklets or pamphlets that tend to provide more problem-specific information. In contrast, information-processing behaviour is a casual process and "often takes place randomly," by attending to news media sources including television, radio, and newspapers.” (Clarke and Kline). Information processing is also called as “passive communication behavior”. Inactively communicating members of a public will not seek for information, but they will frequently practice information that comes at random, that is, without any exertion on their part. Active publics are likely to have high levels of involvement and problem recognition, and lower levels of constraint recognition. Because they recognize how the problem affects them and they think they can do something about it, Grunig theorized that this public will actively seek information and act on that information. Aware publics will process information and might act, but are limited by lower levels of involvement and problem recognition, or higher levels of constraint recognition. Latent publics aren’t cognizant of how an issue involves them, or don’t see it as a problem. This public could become active or aware as information changes its cognitions about the issue. Involvement level is a gauge of how a persona is emotionally relevant to a problem and how it can be for a person (Grunig & Hunt, 1984). Participation increases the possibility of individual’s presence to understand messages (Pavlik, 1988). Dervin (1989) affirms that messages will be concentrated only if the payback or hazards associated with them are “taken on some kind of personal reality or usefulness for the individual” (p. 68). In common, persons with high participation analyze matter more frequently, they favor messages that surround more and better influence (Heath, Liao, & Douglas, 1995; Petty & Cacioppo, 1981, 1986), and achieve greater acquaintance levels (Chaffee & Roser, 1986; Engelberg, Flora, & Nass, 1995). Grunig tested the theory using problems that would create active and passive publics, and found four kinds of publics: all-issue publics, that are active on all issues; apathetic publics, that are inattentive to all issues; single issue publics, that are active on a small subset of the issue that only concerns them; and hot-issue publics, that are active on a single issue that involves nearly everyone and that has received a lot of media attention. Hallahan added to the theory of publics by expanding the latent and nonpublics into inactive and aroused publics. He argued that it is incorrect to assume that the only publics organizations should deal with are those that are active and motivated participants. Inactive publics shouldn’t be overlooked. Hallahan defined inactive publics as groups of individuals with low levels of knowledge and involvement regarding an organization and its operations. These publics may not yet recognize the consequences of an organization’s behavior, may be satisfied with the relationship, or may be apathetic toward the organization. Aroused publics also have low levels of knowledge, but recognize a potential problem or issue. Their level of involvement is heightened, and they are more likely to begin seeking information. Grunig and some other experts used the theory and formulated statistical methods through that theory, would be used to differentiate various types of publics and to explain the similar effects of communication for different public type. Since that time this theory is used broadly in academic studies and in professional practices and researches. The theory also has some resemblance to other theories of consumer behavior, health communication, media exposure, and political communication popular in other domains of communication research. However, the situational theory of publics consists of more variables and has a comparatively developed system of measuring and analyzing other theories. Result is its capability of subsuming other theories. The concept of situational theory was well established by 1984, it continued to develop as a major theory. It further extended to describe the reason people join activist groups for; internal and external aspects were recognized for the sake of problem recognition, level of involvement, and problem recognition. Furthermore research was conducted to determine whether information struggles can create publics or not. In those, some researches on the situational theory evaluated external and internal factors relating to three independent variables (Grunig & Hon, 1988; Grunig, 1997). The main three concepts (problem recognition, “constraint recognition and involvement), were declared as internal as they could be changed by communication, and if external (real/actual), then changes must be made in a person’s environment before his or her perceptions … and communication behavior will change” (Grunig, 1997, p. 25). In fact only a few researches have concentrated on internal and external aspect, findings have shown that the distinction is quite significant for further research (Grunig, 1997). Grunig and Childers (1988) posited both internal and external dimensions of level of involvement, problem recognition, and constraint recognition. Internal level of involvement is essentially ego involvement (Sherif, Sherif, & Nebergall, 1965 ) and such involvement makes individuals resistant to attitudes change. Regarding communication behavior, individuals with high internal involvement with as issue are likely to actively communicate in order to form cognitions supportive of existing attitudes (Grunig & Childers, 1988, p.11). External involvement, in contrast, is an individual’s expectation that an issue has significant personal consequences in the world ( Petty & cacioppo, 1988, p. 82 ). Individuals with high external involvement with an issue are likely to develop reasoned and well-founded attitudes. Petty and Cacioppo’s elaboration likelihood model predicts that high external involvement leads individuals to follow the central route to attitudes, objectively evaluating incoming communication to elaborate on information already received. People with lower external involvement follow a peripheral route to constructing attitudes. Less concerned with the quality of persuasive arguments, they think less about the issue and depend on such quick peripheral cues as source credibility to develop attitudes. These concepts are similar to Grunig’s (Grunig & Hunt, 1984) information seeking (central route) and information processing (peripheral route). Grunig and Childers (1988) distinguished internal and external problem recognition. Internal problem recognition is an intellectual awareness of a problem that piques curiosity and stimulates understanding as an end in itself. External problem recognition is a pragmatic recognition of a real-world problem requiring a real-world solution. In a similar manner, Grunig and Childers distinguished internal and external constraint recognition. Internal constraint recognition is the inverse of Bandura’s (1977) efficacy expectation, the “conviction that one can successfully execute the behavior required to produce the outcomes” (p. 79). External constraint recognition reserves the direction of Bandura’s outcome expectations, an individual’s “estimate that a given behavior will lead to certain outcomes” (p. 79). In 1990 Hamilton expresses disagreement in the beginning of the publication by saying that “the greatest extension of crucial matters relates to the area of local public connection is chain between speculation and practice” (p1). This becomes a rivalry part of the article and also most capable connection in the theory and practice, which is provided on the basis of Grunig’s location hypothesis. (Grunig & hunt 1984). Developed from Dewey's concept an active public that forms when individuals recognize a problem and organize to solve the problem, situational publics are defined by three principal independent variables. The first variable, problem recognition, refers to whether or not the individual recognizes a problem or issue. The second variable, constraint recognition, refers to whether or not the individual believes that he or she can do something to solve the problem. Those who think that nothing can be done have high constraint recognition and are less compelled to become active in the resolution of the problem. Another consideration, referent criteria, is the guideline that people apply to new situations based on previous experiences with the issue or the organization involved. Level of involvement, the third independent variable, refers to how personally the individual connects to the problem. (L. Erwin Atwood). The aim for the planned actions of local community, for important component, has to recognize the substantial people, to influence actual exchange of information, and to produce the favourable impression through communicator which spread the message to general public. So what is required, undoubtedly, it’s a research or thesis relating to access public correlation which will perceive that by having which mean people will interact and when these interaction will give more positive results. For that purpose “Grunig is the one who adopt a theory in order to explain that at what time there is a need of communication between people and on what circumstances it will give more effective and positive results” (Grunig & hunt, 1984, p. 148). When we read this article we came to know that it has three main subjects: competency of the current circumstances theory, its relevance and entity of its distinguishing features. By reading you get the answers of the following quarries. Will Grunig’s situational theory gives an effective step towards the communication of nominated public attitudes? Will this theory be helpful to get communication prospect happening? Will this situational theory be expended by different media sources for publicizing purpose by having the media component demographic records? Will this theory is also for the personal communication response, or is additional time period is required for this theory? In 1990 I demeanour a research study Kansas generational election, and the reason is to examine these quarries. This research was an effort just to notice the public who are using these situational theory variables, then to mark the media for answers in concern of election, to figure the concern political attitudes, and also to gather traditional media demographics of the concerns. The consequences of this research will bring awareness for the readers regarding the three main issues which are highlighted in this article. This precise nature of research is discussed throughout the article and the result having social significance is under observation. Taking about this issue the Grunig’s situational theory “describes that the exchange of information toward people is one of the best assumed by having measurements that how many people will notice the situations by which they are influenced of organizational results”. (Grunig &hunt, 1984, p.148). There are three independent variables which are expressed in that theory and they are consumed to predict the two dependent variables. Take a look on that variables these are problem recognition, constraint recognition, and the last is the level of involvement. By having these three independent variables the prediction of the two dependent variables which gather information and the process of searching information are available. Now about two dependent variables Grunig (1989) says that communication response can be either active or passive” (p. 209). Four essential view publics are shaped from cross-tabulating problem and limit acknowledgment, which were calculated by two objects. Members of the problem-facing public believe about the earthquake problem and consider that they can do a little to protect themselves from tremor, while members of the natural public think about the earthquake problem; however they observe limitation in defending themselves from the problem. Members of everyday public do not reflect on the trouble, but they consider that they could guard themselves in the incident of an earthquake. ultimately, members of the philosophical public report that they, ‘do not believe concerning the difficulty nor do they believe that they could do anything to protect themselves in the event of an earthquake.’ “Grunig's situational theory of publics provides an instrumental framework for examining public response to the New Madrid prediction. For the past 25 years, Grunig has developed and tested situational theory to explain the relationship between public opinion and communication within the context of small, active publics that develop around specific issues. The theory has been tested and supported within a variety of contexts including environmental, agricultural, corporate, health, and political publics.” (James A. Fields) References Blumer, H. (1966). The mass, the public, and public opinion, in B. Berelson and M. Janowitz (eds.), Reader in Public Opinion and Communication, 2nd ed. New York: Free Press. Chaffee, S. , & Roser, C. (1986). Involvement and the consistency of knowledge, attitudes and behaviors. Communication Research, 13, 373-399. Dervin, B. (1989). Audience as listener and learner, teacher and confidante: The sense-making approach. In R.E. Rice & C.K. Atkin (Eds. ), Public communication campaigns (pp. 67-86). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Dewey, J. (1927). The Public and Its Problems, Chicago: Swallow. Engelberg, M. , Flora, J. A. , & Nass, C. I. (1995). AIDS knowledge: Effects of channel involvement and interpersonal communication. Health Communication, 7, 73-91. Grunig, J.E. (1966). The role of information in economic decision making. Journalism Monographs, No. 3. Grunig, J.E. (1968). Information, entrepreneurship, and economic development: A study of the decision-making process of Colombian Latifundistas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison. Grunig, J. E. , & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing Public Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Grunig, J. E., & Hon, L. (1988). Reconstruction of a situational theory of communication: Internal and external concepts as identifiers of publics for AIDS. Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Portland, OR. Grunig, J. E. (1997). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges and new research. In D. Moss, T. MacManus, & D. Vercic (Eds.), Public relations research: An international perspective (pp. 3-48). London: International Thomson Business Press. Grunig, J. E. & Repper, F. C. 1992: 125 Grunig, J. E. 2005. “Situational Theory of Publics.” Encyclopedia of Public Relations, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage: 778-780. Grunig, J. E. 1983. “Communication Behaviors and Attitudes of Environmental Publics: Two Studies.”Journalism Monographs, 81. Heath, R. L., Liao, S., & Douglas, W. (1995). Effects of perceived economic harms and benefits on issue involvement, use of information sources, and actions: A study in risk communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7, 89-109. Hallahan, K. 2000. “Inactive Publics: The Forgotten Publics in Public Relations.” Public Relations Review 26(4):499-515. James A. Fields and Howard Schuman, "Public Beliefs about the Beliefs of the Public," Public Opinion Quarterly 40 (1976-77), pp. 427-448; Carroll J. Glynn, "The Communication of Public Opinion," Journalism Quarterly 64 (1987), pp. 688-697. Krugman, H. E. (1965). The impact of television advertising: Learning without involvement, Public Opinion Quarterly, 29, 349-356. Krugman, H. E. Hartley, E. L. (1970). Passive Learning from Television, Public Opinion Quarterly, 34, 184-190. L. Erwin Atwood, "Illusions of Media Power: The Third-Person Effect," Journalism Quarterly 71 (1994), pp. 269-281; Jeremy Cohen and Robert G. Davis, "Third-Person Effects and the Differential Impact in Negative Political Advertising," Journalism Quarterly 68 (1991), pp. 680-688; Dominic L. Lasorsa, "The Real and Perceived Effects of 'Amerika,"' Journalism Quarterly 66 (1989), pp. 373-378, 529; Richard M. Perloff, "Ego-Involvement and the Third Person Effect of Television News Coverage," Communication Research 16 (1989), pp. 236-262. Pavlik, J.V. (1988). Audience complexity as a component of campaign planning. Public Relations Review, 14, 12- 20. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, IA: Brown. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion. New York: Springer-Verlag. Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27(5), 591-616. Read More

Based on Clarke and Kline's definitions, information seeking is the premeditated, "planned scanning of the environment for messages about a specified topic" While Information processing is the "unplanned discovery of a message, followed by continued processing of it". Clarke and Kline proposed that information seeking and processing behaviours lead individuals to use different communication [TABULAR DATA FOR TABLE 1 OMITTED] media. Information seeking generally has been defined as interpersonal discussion and specialized booklets or pamphlets that tend to provide more problem-specific information.

In contrast, information-processing behaviour is a casual process and "often takes place randomly," by attending to news media sources including television, radio, and newspapers.” (Clarke and Kline). Information processing is also called as “passive communication behavior”. Inactively communicating members of a public will not seek for information, but they will frequently practice information that comes at random, that is, without any exertion on their part. Active publics are likely to have high levels of involvement and problem recognition, and lower levels of constraint recognition.

Because they recognize how the problem affects them and they think they can do something about it, Grunig theorized that this public will actively seek information and act on that information. Aware publics will process information and might act, but are limited by lower levels of involvement and problem recognition, or higher levels of constraint recognition. Latent publics aren’t cognizant of how an issue involves them, or don’t see it as a problem. This public could become active or aware as information changes its cognitions about the issue.

Involvement level is a gauge of how a persona is emotionally relevant to a problem and how it can be for a person (Grunig & Hunt, 1984). Participation increases the possibility of individual’s presence to understand messages (Pavlik, 1988). Dervin (1989) affirms that messages will be concentrated only if the payback or hazards associated with them are “taken on some kind of personal reality or usefulness for the individual” (p. 68). In common, persons with high participation analyze matter more frequently, they favor messages that surround more and better influence (Heath, Liao, & Douglas, 1995; Petty & Cacioppo, 1981, 1986), and achieve greater acquaintance levels (Chaffee & Roser, 1986; Engelberg, Flora, & Nass, 1995).

Grunig tested the theory using problems that would create active and passive publics, and found four kinds of publics: all-issue publics, that are active on all issues; apathetic publics, that are inattentive to all issues; single issue publics, that are active on a small subset of the issue that only concerns them; and hot-issue publics, that are active on a single issue that involves nearly everyone and that has received a lot of media attention. Hallahan added to the theory of publics by expanding the latent and nonpublics into inactive and aroused publics.

He argued that it is incorrect to assume that the only publics organizations should deal with are those that are active and motivated participants. Inactive publics shouldn’t be overlooked. Hallahan defined inactive publics as groups of individuals with low levels of knowledge and involvement regarding an organization and its operations. These publics may not yet recognize the consequences of an organization’s behavior, may be satisfied with the relationship, or may be apathetic toward the organization.

Aroused publics also have low levels of knowledge, but recognize a potential problem or issue. Their level of involvement is heightened, and they are more likely to begin seeking information. Grunig and some other experts used the theory and formulated statistical methods through that theory, would be used to differentiate various types of publics and to explain the similar effects of communication for different public type.

Read More