The effects of motive, communication style, and licensing on the reputation of public relations

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
The effects of motive, communication style, and licensing on the reputation of public relations an impression management perspective
Physical Description:
vii, 206 leaves : ; 29 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Sallot, Lynne M., 1948-
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Public relations consultants -- Public opinion   ( lcsh )
Public relations   ( lcsh )
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1993.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 191-205).
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Lynne M. Sallot.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001933615
notis - AKA9684
oclc - 30798387
System ID:
AA00003257:00001

Full Text










THE


EFFECTS OF MOTIVE, COMMUNICATION STYLE, AND
ON THE REPUTATION OF PUBLIC RELATIONS:
AN IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE


LICENSING


LYNNE


SALLOT


A DISSERTATION


PRESENTED


TO THE


GRADUATE


SCHOOL


OF THE


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
nnrrnpT or PWTT.flgfpTTV













ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


A great


many


people


have


contributed


in a variety


ways


graduate


studi


which


culminate


in this


work.


Primary


acknowledgments


belong


committee:


Leonard


Tipton,


cochair,


"taking


me on"


when


I began


the


Ph.D


. program;


Michael


Weigold,


the


introduction


impression


Barry


management


Schlenker,


paradigm


more


which


in-depth


sparked


this


study


inquiry;


impr


session


management;


Kim


Walsh-Childers,


inspiring


the


experimental


design;


and,


most


importantly


, Mary


Ann


Ferguson,


lead


cochair,


whose


keen


intelligence,


love


research,


and


knowledge


deep


and


broad,


influenced


every


phase


work


am deeply


indebted


to each


them.


Next,


thank


a host


former


colleagues


and


friends


who


gave


unflagging


encouragement:


Judie


Rappaport


Musson,


Anne


Hart,


Ann


Black


, Paula


Musto


, Tanja


DeLucca


, and


especially


Robin


Bloksberg


and


Kathy


Tanny


. Kurt


Kent,


Kaye


Laurila,


the


rest


the


graduate


faculty,


and


the


public


relations


department


faculty


and


staff


were


always


helpful


and


supportive


Dr. Anthony


Clark


associate


professor


of communication


processes


, UF;


Rick


son,


director


of Vocal


tyes


at UF;







Three


professors


who


volunteered


inspiration


and


encouragement


beyond


call


of duty


are


Drs


SRebecca


Welch


Cline,


ass


ociate


prof


essor


of communication


processes,


Thomas


communication


associate


here


. Steinfatt


, University


professor


at UF and


, profe


ssor


of Miami;


of journalism


University


director


and

UF.


of Miami


Julie


speech


. Dodd,


students,


further


both


motivated


me to continue


work.


am extremely


grateful


fellow


"doc"


students.


Drs


.Pat


Darlington


Barry


Hollander


were


especially


helpful


with


data


collection


and


data


analyst


respectively


In particular


, Laura


McCarthy


and


Milagros


Rivera-Sanchez


brightened,


enlightened


and


enriched


the


past


year


in ess


ential


innumerable


ways,


direct


and


indirect.


new


colleagues


University


of Georgia


shined


the


light


end


sometimes


dim


tunne


Milli


and


Laura


traveled


course


with


me, dispensing


excellent


companionship

Finally,


while


sharing


recognize


load.


the


support


family


brothers


and


sters


-in-law


Dick


and


Sally


Funk


, and


especially


Bob


and


Debbie


Funk;


their


daughter


and


sons


especially


Sandra


Lynne


Funk


Avis


and


my aunt,


Myrtle


Funk


Jacks


ick.


Special


tribute


is due


mother


, Rose


Marie


Funk


Pyle


future


daughter-in-law


, Sandra


Durham;


and


above


, my son,


Kenneth


Edward


Sallot.


is to


these















TABLE


OF CONTENTS


page


ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


ABSTRACT


* . ii


a S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S Vl


CHAPTERS


INTRODUCTION


. . a . 1


v Reasons


An Advocacy


The Impres
vAdditional


Research
Summary

PUBLIC R


Perceived


View


sion


Poor


of Public


Management


Influences


Hypothe


of Di


ses


ssertation


RELATIONS


AND


Reputation
Relations
Perspective


. . 5


on Reputation . . 9
S . . . 12


Contents


REPUTATION


. 13

. . . 14


Reputation


Research
Advocacy
Grunig's


of Publi


Relations


on the Reputation
in Public Relation


Four


Communication


Models
Styles


of Public
in Public


An Overview


of Public


Relations


. 14


. 19


. . . 34


Relations
Relations


. 40


. . 49


Profe
Impli


ssionalism


cations


in Public


of Reputation


Relations
in Public


* . 51


Relations


. 54


IMPRESSION


MANAGEMENT


RESEARCH


. . . 58


Overview


Pro


-Social


the Impres
Behavior an


sion


Management


Paradigm


. 58


Appearance


Intentionality


. . . 71


Impre
Links


sslon


between


Management


Impre


sslon


Organi


zations


Management


and


. . 75
Public


Relations


. . . . . 76


SYNTHESIS


AND


HYPOTHESES


S. . 83


Motives
Motives


to Impre


sslon


Communication


Manage
Style


. . 83


and


Prof


ess


ionalism








METHODOLOGY


. . . . . 92


Methodology:


The


Experiment


An Overview
al Manipulate


S. . . 92
ons . . 93


Measurement
Procedure


of Variables


RESULTS


Overview


Constructing
Assumptions


the
the


Experiment
Measures


. . . .


125


Tests
Other


of Hypothe


ses


Significant


Findings


DISCUSSION


Summary
Summary


of Hypothe
of Post Ho


Limitations


ses


Test


Analy
Study


Results


ses


Conclu


Future


sons
Public


Res


Implications


Relations


earch


earch


180


APPENDICES


EXAMPLES


EXAMPLES


OF NEWS


ARTICLES


OF INFORMATION


BACKGROUNDERS


REFERENCE


LIST


191


BIOGRAPHICAL


SKETCH














Abstract


of Dissertation


Presented


the


Graduate


School


the


University


Requirements


of Florida


Degree


Partial I
of Doctor


fulfillment of
of Philosophy


the


THE


EFFECTS


OF MOTIVE,


COMMUNICATION


STYLE,


AND


LICENSING


ON THE


REPUTATION


OF PUBLIC


RELATIONS


AN IMPRESSION


MANAGEMENT


PERSPECTIVE


Lynne


August


Sallot

1993


Chairmen:


. Leonard


Tipton


, Chair


Major


Dr. Mary
Department:


Ann


Ferguson,


Journalism


Cochair
Communications


Research


generally


attributes


perceived


negative


reputation

journalists


pejorative


of public


' bias


press


relations


against


coverage


the


practitioner


, and


influences o

s, resulting


unethical


unprof


ess


ional


practitioners


who


usurp


the


term


"public


relations


The


theoretical


framework


impr


session


management


from


social


psychology


was


used


review


the


literature


on the


reputation


of public


relations


and


offer


hypothe


ses.


new


model


conceptualiz


advocacy


as an


underlying


dimension


public


relations


was


presented


along


with


impre


ssion


management


rationales


regarding


perce


ived


motives


and


intentionality


as an explanation


public


relations


' sometimes


questionable


reputation.







practitioners


sponsors


, would


be deemed


more


reputable


when


licen


sed practitioners


engage


in two


-way


communication


altruistic


or unknown


motives


, and


ess


respect


ed when


unli


censed


practitioners


use


one-way


communication


selfish


or prosocial


motives


(motive


to impr


session


manage)


(communi


cation


style


proff


ess


ionalism)


factorial


des


experiment


was


conducted


using


fabricated


news


article


and


information


backgrounder s


about


a public


relations


campaign.


Subj


ects


were


non-student


adults


undergraduate


students.


xed support


was


found


hypotheses


The


reputation


of public


relations


was


found


to be better


than


expect
^yr~r'l


overall


are


The


known


results


other


suggest


motives


that


are


when


concealed


altruistic


, the


motives


reputation


public


relations


enhanced.


The


study


lends


support


licensing


public


relations


as a means


Improving


reputation,


with


caveat


that


licensing


should


entail


strict


sanctions


against


incompetents.


results


call


into


question


tenet


that


two-way


or symmetrical


communication


is most


effective


public


relations


was


suggested


that


future


research


in public


relations


take


into


cons


ideration


advocacy


dimension


as well


as the


impression


management


paradigm.














CHAPTER


INTRODUCTION


O wad


some


power


the


giftie


gle


see


It wad


ours
frae


others


monle


see


a blunder


free


An' foolish


notion


What


airs


dress


an' gait


wad


e us,


ev'n devotion


--Robert


Burns


(1786/1897)


What


do people


think


of public


relations?


Although


pervades


almost


every


aspect


of most


Western


cultures,


public


relations


widely


believed


to suffer


from


a poor


reputation,


field


least


s reputation


North


problem


America.


abound.


References


example


the


De Loache


(1976)


wrote


that


public


relations


has


enemies


and


"often


lacks


a good


reputation"


because


many


sins


have


been


committed


in its


name"


(pp.


432


-433)


William


Ehling


Syracuse


University


been


quoted


as suggesting


that


public


relations


practitioners


"are


handicapped


rather


than


helped


the


label


[public


relations]"


(Lapierre,


1990


, p.


Kruckeberg


Starck


(1988)


noted


that


the


history


the


field


"vague


at best


and


tawdry


at worst"


Newsom


and


Scott


(1985)


wrote,


many


minds


has


long


been


associated


with


image


making


and


the


false


. PR







interest


the


ed only


tent"


taking


Olasky


your


(1987)


money


getting


lamented


that


you


"one


inside


problem


faced


apologi


bigger


better


public


relations


that


getting


the


worse


reputation


rather


of public


than


relations


better"


seems


Pavlik


to be


(1987)


ass


erted


that


field


s tarnished


image


has


kept


many


scholars


other


academic


circles


from


conducting


research


sec


ond-class


scipline


. unworthy


their


attention"


Reasons


Perceived


Poor


Reputation


Why


public


relations


accrued


such


a negative


reputation?


the


past


, public


relations


scholars


most


often


have


attempted


to explain


negative


image


of public


relations


two


primary


way


-product


the


conflict


between


journalists


public


relations


practitioners


which


public


relations


gets


bashed


newsrooms


and


news


columns


the


theory


that


"few


bad


apples


" in


minority


fringe


spoil


the


reputation


practitioners


. Olasky


(1987)


calls


the


latter


"blaming


the


periphery"


135)


Since


the


1960s


(Feldman,


1961a


, 1961b)


rese


archers


have


conducted


journalists


and


numerous

public


studies

relations


on the


relationship


practitioners


and


between

have


found


considerable


evidence


of conflict


and


antagonism


resulting


in diminished


credibility


of practitioners








Habermann


, Kopenhaver


, & Martinson,


1988;


Jeffers


, 1977;


Kopenhaver,


Martin


son,


& Ryan,


1984;


Nicolai


& Riley,


1972


Rivers


& Schramm


, 1969;


Ryan


& Martinson,


1984,


1988;


Sallot,


1990;


Saunders


, 1989;


Schabacker,


1963;


Turk,


1986).


Often,


the


conflict


between


journalists


and


practitioners


results


in negative


ess


coverage


and


pejorative


use


terms


public


relations


and


news


media


(Spicer


, 1993)


the


public


(Wilcox


, Ault


Agee, 1986).

1903, journals


This

such


is not


a recent


as Harpers


development.


Weekly


, McClures,


As early

and


Colliers


carried


unflattering


coverage


about


public


relations,


yielding


sometimes


mixed


messages


For


example


an eight-page


article


Harpers


in 1929


concluded


that


"While


PR has


debased


communications


and


increased


cyni


Cism,


has


improved


corporate


behavior"


(Walker,


1988)


Lending


the


some


-reputation-of


support


-all


theory,


"few-bad


highly


public


-apple


C1Z


s"-spoiling-

news


coverage


ques


tionable


ethical


behavior


some


public


relations


practitioners


along


with


those


who


"usurp


the


An <
relations
acceptance


example
that re


of recent


ceived


of a retainer


ethical


national


Hill


brouhahas


publicity


was


& Knowlton,


I public
the


one


the


world'
States
fight


largest


Catholi
against


public


relations


Conference


abortion


firms,


to represent


rights


without


from
the


first


the
group


United
in its


consulting


own


staff


Knowlton


expected
staffers


to work


quit


on the


in protest,


account.
prompting


-, a


Several


Hill


headlines


"When


- -r


__


q


*


*


II A







title"


of public relations,


serves only to sully


further


public relations'


image and reinforce any negative


perceptions


imagery


field held by the


of public relations contributes


public.


to the


Such negative


field's


confused


professional


identity


(Files,


1986)


, public


distrust


of public relations


(Newsom,


Scott,


& Turk,


1989)


demoralization


its own practitioners


(Olasky,


1987


Sallot,


1990).


same


time,


the reputation


of public relations


not always


terrible;


sometimes


is pretty


good.


latest


national


study


of public ratings


of occupational


prestige,


public relations was


ranked above average


(Davis,


Smith,


Hodge,


Nakao and Treas,


1991) .


industry,


public


relations


has experienced great growth,


with


increasing numbers of


organizations


using public relations'


representation,


greater numbers of


practitioners


entering


the


field,


increased


enrollments


in public relations


degree


programs


in the


past


twenty years


(Becker,


1991;


Kendall,


1984) .


At best,


public relations


is valued


for the


services


it performs


for many


the organizations


represents,


and provides a


rewarding


career


choice


for many


practitioners


(Newsom,


Scott,


Turk,


1989).


Edw<
founding f
retellings


ard L.
ather
of t]


Bernays,


the often


of public relations,


ne young girl


passing


feted 101-year-old
is renowned for 1


out


leaflets on Harvard


Square and


calling the activity


"public relations.


More


__








Under


these


divergent


conditions


seems


reasonable


re-examine


public


relations


' perceived


poor


image


and


seek


alternative


explanations


why


that


public


relations--at


st by


some


criti


under


some


conditions--


appears

there b


to be di


sliked


e something


distrusted


intrins


about


and denigrated.

public relations


Might

itself


that


diminishes


reputation?


An Advocacy


View


of Publi


Relations


Since


nearly


beginning


of public


relations,


advocacy


has


been


the


heart


practice.


Its early


practitioners


were


glorified


public


relations


' pioneer


E.L.


Bernays


"special


leaders


who


seek


to create


public


acceptance


a particular


idea


or commodity"


(Bernays


1928


, p.


Yet


advocacy


does


seem


to be a popular


descriptor


of public


relations.


review


indi


ces


of nine


popular


introductory


textbooks


the


eld


reveals


a bri


reference


to advocacy


public


relations


only


one


Seitel,


1989)


Still,


in a non-indexed


reference


to advocacy


their


textbook,


public


Cutlip


relations


Center


must


Broom


"ethically


(1985)


maintained


, effectively


plead


that


the


cause


of a client


or organization


the


forum


of public


debate"


. 450


-451)--in


other


words


, public


relations


practitioners


must


advocate


their


sponsors.


There


evidence


that


sponsors


expect


less


them


(Fegley,







The


present


research


argues


a model


advocacy


public


relations


that


consists


of a continuum


or und


erlying


dimension

public re


of advocacy


lations


linking


this


model


the

all


various

public


relations


practitioners


are


seen


to advocate


, perhaps


in varying


degrees


according


to circumstan


ces


to advocate


neverthel 1


advocacy


ess


is an


Primary


inherent


assumptions


element


of public


model


are


relations


that


that


advocacy


cannot


be separated


from


public


relations


, and


that


public


relations


always


involves


intended


acts


advocacy,


least


whenever


public


relations


practitioners


are


acting


professionally.


The


Impression


Management


PerspDective


These


assumptions


help


place


public


relations


another


research


paradigm--the


social


psychological


theor


etical


perspective


called


session


management.


paradigm


suggests


that


impression


management


is the


ocess


that


regulates


one


s behavior


order


cre


particular


impression


on others


(Jones


Pittman


, 1982;


Leary


Kowal


, 1990).


Impression


management


involves


deliberate


regulating


or controlling


information


and


editing


the


images


that


are


pres


ented


so they


are


consistent


with


goals


the


impression


manager


Schlenker,


1980)


Impr


session


managers


may


choose


to emphasize


one


attribute







part


the


whol


(DePaulo,


1992)


Such


controlling


information


facilitates


goal


achievement,


and


thi


sense,


impression


management


thought


to be purposeful


, strategic


and


dynamic


(Schlenker


Weigold,


1992


The


definition


a deliberate


attempt


convey


a particular


impr


session


does


not


imply


that


impression


management


is neces


sarily,


intrin


sically


deceptive


(Jones


Pittmann,


1982


Schlenker


1980,


1984;


Schlenker


& Weigold,


1989).


Although


much


impres


sion


management


research


has


focused


on interpersonal


relations


the


perspective


applies


equally


well


to organizational


communication


(Arkin


Shepperd,


1989;


Gardner


& Martinko,


1988)


The


impression


management


perspective


seems


particularly


well


suited


enhancing


understanding


of public


relations


since


impression


management


public


relations


both


largely


involve


the


strategic


control


information


to communicate


particular,


desired


images


identified


audiences


this


sense


, public


relations


impression


management.


Motives


to Impression


Manaae


the


same


time


, the


literature


sugge


that


impr


ess


managers


who


are


perceived


their


audiences


be behaving


in an overt


, intentional


fashion


so as to


manage


impressions


are


ess


trusted


ess


liked


than


impression


managers


who


do not


appear


to be


intentionally


managing


impr


sessions


(Jones


Pittman


, 1982)


SThose


who


do good








order


win


favor


will


seen


as manipulative


and


deceitful


when


such


behavior


is motivated


self-interests.


Perc


eived


intentionality


or purp


osiveness


a key


and


partic


ipants


in communic


ation


are


capable


of distinguishing


between


behaviors


perceived


as high


intentionality


or purposiveness


(Bowers


, 1989;


Bradac,


Hopper


, & Wiemann,


1989)


Strategic


impression


management


behaviors


generated


the


intentionality


and


purposiveness


of self-int


rest,


even


instances


pro


-social


behavior


(Tedeschi


Riordan,


1981)


are


thought


present


work


occur


in the


advocacy a

impression


actions


of public


management


relations


paradigm


may


Therefore


suggest


the


an alternative


explanation


public


relations


' poor


image


other


than


stemming


from


conflict


between


journal


and


practitioners,


or as the


result


of unethical


unprofessional


behaviors


of a few


peripheral


practitioners


summarize,


impression


management


rese


arch


suggest


that


when


an observer


knows


that


an actor


intentionally


engaging


impression-managing


behaviors


to achieve


behaio
behavior


do not
obtain
study u
actions


Tedeschi


and


as actions


appear


immediate


ses


the


provide


benefactors


Riordan


that


(1981


provide


to be motivated


payoff


term


mean


benefits
differs


themsel


"mixed


to others


from


Tede


define


benefits


pros


social


to others


benefactors


ves


motives
as well


schi


224)


' de


that


sire


This


in which


as to


the


Riordan


usage


. -


w


__


.. W


I








particular


goal


the


observer


likely


view


the


actor


self


-interested


, manipulative


and


deceitful,


and


to distrust


and


slike


the


actor,


even


when


the


actor


s goals


are


beneficent


to society


Thi


because


those


who


do good


win


favor


are


seen


as manipulative


and


deceitful


when


self


interests


are


seen


as driving


such


behavior


(Bowers


, 1989;


Bradac,


Hopper


, & Wiemann,


1989;


Jones


Pittman,


1982)


Relating


this


knowledge


the


advocacy


view


of public


relations


, audience


knowledge


of selfish


or mixed


motives


the


part


of public


relations


advocates


is expected


lead


to greater


distrust


than


when


public


relations


practitioners


and


their


sponsors


have


altruistic


or unknown


motives


Thi


sugge


that


even


when


public


relations


advocates


serve


society


s interests,


they


may


be held


suspect


because


of perceived


self-interests.


This


study


propo


ses


investigate


differences


in motives


impress


ion


manage


including


altruistic


, prosocial


, selfish,


and


no motive


given,


and


their


effects


on the


reputation


of public


relations,


practitioners


sponsors


, among


the


general


public.


Additional


Influences


on Reputation


seems


reasonable


to ask


there


are


any


conditions


which


may


cause


a public


relations


advocate


to be


more


Although


and


prosocial


-aC ^r -^ VT -


some


behavior


authors


. Beck,


interchangeably,


r a 4-,' 1tr; ntonio


1990)
i this


tn hcnl- o i


use


altruism


study
nthsr?


; tc nrt E1iro


rn fare


Tr







trusted


manage


less


trusted.


impressions,


In addition


this


study


to different


proposes


moti


examine


ves


two


oss


ible


conditions


that


may


moderate


the


negative


perceptions


of motives


impression


manage


because


advocacy


es:


communication


style


, operationalized


"monologue"


"dialogue


" and


professionalism,


operationalized


identification


of practitioners


licensed


or the


absence


licensing


identification.


Influence


of Communications


Style


In recent


public


years


relations,


, intera


based


ctive


on different


, symmetrical


styles


model


of practice


approaches


to public


relations


have


become


popular


as a


means


of elevating


professional


status


of public


relations


Some


researchers


claim


that


applications


these


symmetric


counteract


mode


some


instead of asymmetric

negativity surrounding


model

the


may

eld


(Grunig


& Hunt,


1984;


. Grunig


Grunig


, 1989;


Grunig,


1987;


Repper


, 1992)


, although


the


premise


remains


be tested


empirically


These


interactive


, symmetrical


model


public


have


constituted


relations


past


predominant


decade


focus


sadeos


of research


& Renfro,


1992


(The


model


are


reviewed


detail


the


next


chapter


Several


definitions


of public


relations


and


several


scholars


field


consider


two-way


communication







exist


(Kendall,


Baxter,


Pessolano,


1988;


Ehling,


1984,


1985)


Others


believe


that


one-way


communication,


rooted


the


rhetorical


model,


can


be equally


effective


and


is not


intrinsically


inferior


to two-way


communication.


They


argue


that


such


one-way


communication


can


be characterized


persuasive


communication


and


is often


used


in public


relations


to good


effect


(Bernays,


1985;


Heath


, 1992c


Miller


, 1989).


study,


two


level


of communication


styles


or strategies


, will


be examined


monologue


and


dialogue.


the


purposes


investigation


, two-way


communication


generally


expected


to be


more


reputable.


Influence


Profess


ionalism


To enhance


their


reputations


, many


occupations


have


joined


the


trend


toward


government


licensing


to achieve


the


status


many

oppos


of profession


practitioners


licensing


(Hogan,


academic


, including


1983b)


alike

two 1


In public


have


largest


relations


vigorously

national


prof


essi


onal


organizations--the


Publi


Relations


Society


America


and


the


International


Association


of Business


Communicators


Generally


, the


reasoning


those


oppo


that


licensing


could


limit


competition;


seen


as cos


ineffective

unnecessary


and

and


superfluou

unwelcome


is expected


government


regulation


invite

(Baxter


1986;


Lesly


, 1986;


"What


Publi


Relations,


" 1993


Bernays


has


very


vocal


group


of prof


ess


ionals








rationale


that


licensing


is the


only


way


to elevate


the


status


the


field


to a prof


session


practitioners


professionals


, and


to put


teeth


into


sanctions


against


any


transgr


essors


relations


interlopers


' reputation


in any


who


way


would


(Bernays,


threaten


1992


public


, 1993;


Forbes


, 1986).


Whil


studi


have


examined


opinions


about


acc


reditation


see


example


, Wright,


1981)


, the


effects


licensing


on the reputation


of public


relations


remain


tested.


study


conditions


of prof


ess


ionalism


will


be examined


licensed


practitioners


versus


not


licensed


practitioners.


purposes


investigation,


general


,licensed


professionals


are


expected


to be


seen


as more


reputable


than


unli


censed.


Research


Hypotheses


The


pre


sent


work


will


examine


how


knowledge


diff


erent


moti


ves


impression


management


behavior


public


relations


advocates


affects


reputation


of public


relations.


It also


will


examine


whether


there


are


some


conditions


related


to communication


style


and


prof


ess


ionalism


under


which


public


relations


sources


are


trusted


ess


or more.


The


work


assumes


that


practitioners


always


act


advocates


in the


interests


their


spons


oring


clients


organizations


and


may


interests


of other


publics







practitioners


are


professionals


paid


to represent


the


interests


their


sponsoring


clients


and


organize


nations.


The


research


hypotheses


are


presented


in detail


Chapter


Generally,


is expected


that


public


relations


practitioners


and


sponsors


, will


win


better


reputations


when


licensed


practitioners


engage


in two-way


communication


for


altruistic


or unknown


motives,


and


will


ess


respected


when


unlicensed


practitioners


use


one-way


communication


selfish


or prosocial


"mixed")


moti


ves.


Summary


of Di


ssertation


Contents


Chapter


reviews


recent


research


public


relations


including


the


conflicts


between


practitioners


and


journalists

reputation,


that

and


contribute


models


to the


of public


field


relations


perceived

relevant


poor


the


dissertation.


Chapter


scusses


the


impression


management


paradigm


from


social


psychology


and


relevance


to public


relations.


Chapter


presents


a synthesis


and


the


resulting


hypotheses


Chapter


5 describes


methodology


the


study;


Chapter


results.


The


final


chapter


provides


overall


discussion


findings


and


conclusions














CHAPTER


PUBLIC RELATIONS AND


REPUTATION


Public relations


is all-pervasive


in many Western


societies,


especially


in North America.


one


form or


another,


public relations occurs


in most social


institutions


and


organizations,


from politics


to products,


and


from


sports


entertainment


to corporations


and non-profit


organizations of


sizes.


After the


Persian Gulf War


and


the military's


near-total


control


over


battlefront news


coverage,


public relations has even come


to be


seen


as a


weapon


of modern warfare


Reputation


(Hiebert,


of Public


1991).


Relations:


An Overview


Yet,


despite


its wide and widely


accepted


pract ice,


bit


of a pall hangs over public relations.


The


profession


so often seen as


being preoccupied


with


positive


image-


making


others


suffers sometimes


from an


image


problem of


own


1 (e.g.


Bishop,


1988;


Charron,


1989;


Cline,


1982;


Cutlip,


Center,


Broom,


1985;


Feldman,


1961a,


1961b;


Jeffers,


1977;


Nicolai


& Riley,


1972;


Poorman,


1974;


Sanoff,


1979;


Simon,


1986;


Turk,


1986;


Wilcox,


Ault,


& Agee,


1986).








Perhaps


part


the


problem


may


be that


the


term


public


relations


means


so many


different


things.


Popular


interpretations


of what


constitutes


public


relations


run


the


gamut


from


party-planning


to Papal


relations.


The


Publi


Relations


Society


America


(PRSA)


, a leading


prof


ess


ional


association,

management f


identify


suggests


:unction


the


that


which


policies


public r

evaluates


and


elation

public


procedures


S


the


attitudes,

an individual


an organization


with


the


public


interest,


and


plans


and


executes


a program


understanding


and


action


acceptance


earn


(Kendall,


retain


Baxter


public


& Pessolano


1988)


But


in conversations


and


print,


the


terms


"public


relations"


"PR"


are


commonly


paired


with


"ploy"


and


"gimmick"


other


negative


connotations.


The


pejorative


term


"flack"


(believed


derived


from


the


German


"flieger


adwehrkanone


" popularized


after


World


War


to ref


barrage


lies


as thick


fast


as anti


-aircraft


defense)


has


become


linked


with


public


relations


practitioners


the


way


"quack"


with


phy


sicians,


"shyster"


with


lawyers


, and


"hack"


Pavlik


with


bad


(1987)


writers


notes


that


(Wilcox,


noveli


Ault,


st Henry


& Agee


James


, 1986


even


unflatteringly


named


fictional


character


"George


Flack"


an analyst


terms


public


relations


published


press


references


picer


(1993)


found


. 88)


. 14)


m







is possible


that some of


public relations'


bad


press


fueled by the


belief


that public


relations


will


go to any


lengths


to deliberately mis-inform and manipulate


images


present


artificially


enhanced


impressions


clients.


Certainly,


public relations


is concerned with


impressions,


but


it has


been argued that,


as reflections


of reality,


"images


are


proper subject matter


of public


relations"


(Sullivan,


1965


, p.


240) .


This


issue of motive


to manage


impressions


is key to


present study


and


will


addressed


in detail


later.


At worst,


public relations practitioners


have


suffered


derogatory descriptors


like


"weasels"


in Associated Press


wire reports


(Hampson,


1991) .


At best,


public relations


associated with management


functions,


policy making


for the


public


interest


, strategic planning to earn public


understanding


and acceptance


(Kendall,


Baxter


Pessolano,


1988),


and harmonious


symmetry


(Grunig


& Hunt


, 1984)


Further


clouding the situation


fact


that


practice


of public relations


itself


entails


so wide an array


activities


that


there


is no simple answer to


the question:


just what


is public relations?


In practice,


public


relations


problems offer a bewildering


assortment of


competing


solutions


, ranging from multi-step,


complicated


campaigns


over


long periods of


time


to a


judicious


use


taking no action at all


(Cutlip,


Center


Broom,


1985;







relations


may


so characteristically


"unstructured"


that


the


field


becomes


"a jungle"


(Files


, 1986


. 41)


Such


variation


and


ambiguity


lack


Some


of structure


have


attempted


brings

to hack


to bear


considerable


a footpath


through


the


jungle.


Bernays


(1977),


nephew


of Sigmund


Freud


who


coined


the


phrase


"public


relations


counselor"


and


was


the


first


professor


of public


relations


the


college


level


, believed


the


practice


of public


relation


could


be streamlined


modeling


itself


after


the


practice


. Public


relations


practitioners


like


attorneys


, would


seek


out


precedent


cases


, then


practitioners


would


use


these


precedents


guides


to solve


eventually


their


gave


clients

notion


' problems.


because


But


public


Bernays

relations


too


fluid


to fit


legal


model;


public


relations


has


too


many


ever-


changing


variable


that


constantly


transform


situations


precedents


there


"cases


which


Although


no formal


" making


public

h the


"court"


concept


relations


engages


analogy


to decide


, negating


faulty


public


of precedent


any


in that


relations


irrelevant,


it does


aptly


underscore


the ambiguity


fluidity


of public


relations


in practice.


However


, Bernays


(199


, 1993)


not


given


on another


of hi


notions


rooted


the


legal


model--that


enhanced


the


were


reputation


of public


practitioners


relations


licensed,


would


as attorneys


are.







Multiplicity


of Definitions


The


multiplicity


diversity


of definitions


in public


relations


tend


to further


amplify


ambiguities


the


field


and


do nothing


to enhance


reputation,


however


arduous


the


task


of defining


under


such


diverse


conditions


might


Many


have


taken


challenge.


Harlow


(1976)


surveyed


definitions


of public


relations


to distill


lengthy


one


of his


own.


Grunig


Hunt


(1984)


boiled


down


Harlow


version


"the


management


of communication


between


organization


and


publics"


Long


and


Hazelton


(1987)


public


reviewed


relations


literature


to develop


"a communication


a definition


function


of management


through


which


organizations


adapt


alter


, or maintain


their


environment


purpose


achieving


organizational


goals"


Pavlik


(1987


suggests


that


public


relations


may


have


"evolved


into


the business


relationship


management"


118).


Research


diversity.


public


As a prelude


relations


proposing


presented


a paradigm


a similar


focus


research


public


relations


that


would


enhance


"probability


of productive


surveyed


theory


abstracts


development


of articles


" Ferguson


published


(1984,

Public


Relations


Review


nine


years


preceding.


Articl


were


classified


into


three


general


groupings


introspective


class


of artic


dealing


with


topics


such








public


relations


covering


management


issues,


implementation


of public


relations


programs


campaigns


, applied


research


methods


, and


like,


repres


enting


percent;


and


theory


development


, repre


senting


percent.


Ferguson


then


identified


three


areas


"scholarship


concerns


unique"


to public


relations


scholars


that


promi


sed


theory


development


potential


as paradigm


foci


Soc


responsibility


and


ethics


, social


issues


and


issues


management


, and


public


relationships


16) .


the


three,


Fergu


son


favored


the


last,


with


the


relationship


as the


major


focus


the


research


unit


of analysis


, because


difficult


think


any


other


field


where


the


primary
organi


y empha
zations


groupings


is on the


between


in society,


relationships


organizations


or more


and


generally


between


one
with


or more
society


itself


Two


definitions


of public


relations--the


one


Grunig


and


Hunt


(1984)


and


the


other


Pavlik


(1987)


--appeal


because


their


simplic


However


, the


Grunig


and


Hunt


vers


focuses


on the


management


of communication.


The


Pavlik


definition


management"


nicely


s broader


approach


complements


"relationship


observations


Ferguson


(1984),


seems


more


relevant


discussion


and


will


used


the


present


work.


Research


on the


Reputation


of Public


Relations


There


has


been


comparatively


little


formal


research


crnndncritecd


about+


what


I-nC


public


thinks


of Public


relations,


. (p.







thought


to be worthy


additional


research--management


perceptions


of public relations has


been


identified


as one


of six priority research questions


for the


1990s


public


relations


(McElreath,


1990).


If corporate practitioners who participated


in a


coorientation-type survey


conducted by


Ryan


(1987)


were


correct


in'how they perceived management perceiving public


relations,


and


such


views prove representative,


the news


may not

agreed


be good.


that


Fifty-six percent of


the respondents


"management wants the public relations


staff


tell


the


public what management


wants the


public to


know,


rather than what


public needs to


know"


and


percent


agreed


that


"management


insists that efforts


be made


ignore


or to conceal


from various


publics


negative


news


about


the organization"


477)


next section briefly


reviews what


known about


the general


public's


attitudes


toward


public relations.


Public Attitudes


toward Public


Relations


From time


to time,


public opinion


polls measuring


status


or prestige of


various occupational


groups


include


public


relations.


example,


Olasky


(1987)


cited


a poll


about

Public


occupations


supposedly


Relations Journal


reported


on page


the November


1972


public







relations


practitioners


were


ranked


just


ahead


of used


car


sellers.


a more


ambitious


investigation


to replicate


and


extend


1964


benchmark


study


, Davis,


Smith,


Hodge,


Nakao


and


Treas


(1991)


analyzed


prestige


ratings


assigned


national


sample


occupational


titles


, including


occupational


categories


used


in the


1980


census


Participants


were


asked


to rate


prestige


the


occupations


on a scale


of 1-to-9


, to which


researchers


applied


several


statistical


trans format ions


and


adjustments.


The


resulting


index


of occupational


prestige


ranged


from


a low


score


16.8


dishwashers


to a high


score


of 86


physicians


= 42


, SD


= 14.1)


Public


relations


special


= 47


were


rated


above


average


ahead


of adverti


sing


espersons


39.3),


fortune


tellers


= 35.6)


and


used


car


sellers


but


behind


print


journal


= 59


televi


sion


and


radio


announcers


= 54.8)


funeral


directors


49.1).

index.


Table


Although


summarizes


public


additional


relations


excerpts


practitioners


from

were


the

judged


to be


more


prestigious


than


average


, they


were


below


another


prof


ess


ional


group


that


gets


equally


bad


ress--


lawyers


74.8)


fact


that


lawyers


are


ensed


and


win


such


higher


pre


stige


ratings


may


lend


some


support


Bernays


' arguments


in favor


licensing


of public


relations







Table


Selected


Occupational


Presticqe


Ratings


from


the


1989


General


Social


SurveY


by Davis


. et


al. (1991)


Rating


Occupation


Ratinca


Occupation


86.05
74.77


Phys


ician


Lawyer
College


PR Sp


ecialist


Plumber


Professor


40.03


Typi


st/Word


Processor


73.15
71.79


64.14


Architect
Dentist
Clergy
Mechanical


City


Compute
Police


Editor
X-Ray


Council


Adverti


35.76


Care


Fortune


engineer
Member


34.24


Used


sing


Aide


Tell


Car


Sale


person


Relat


Waiter/Waitr


r Programmer
Officer


Shoe


ess


shiner


Street


and Reporter
Technician


Broadcast


Pos


master


Pushcart
Messenger


Announcer


Parking


Sweeper


Vendor


Attendant


Funeral


Director


News


Vendor


48.82


Real


Estate


Agent


16.78


shwasher


In Chapter


was


suggested


that,


now


, the


tainted

attribut


reputation


of public


to negative


by-product


public


press


ongoing


relations


relations

coverage


conflict


practitioners.


been large


of public


between


relations


journalists


is possible


that


and


some


negative


practitioners


no other


attitudes


are


reason


held


than


that


journalists


public


as a result


harbor


large


the


about


as well


, if


negative


public


city


that


journalists


generate


about


public


relations


The


next


section


reviews


a few


key


studi


from


more


than


thirty


years


of research


focusing


on the


conflict


between


public


relations


Journalists


practitioners


Attitudes


toward


and

Publi


journalist

c Relation


re








between


journalists


and


public


relations


practitioners


has


been


well


established


(Gieber,


1960;


Jeffers,


1977;


Nicolai


& Riley,


1972;


Rivers


& Schramm,


1969;


Ryan


& Martinson,


1984;


Schabacker,


1963 ;


Turk,


1986) .


Despite


the


largely


adversarial


nature


the


inter-relationship


between


the


two


professional


groups,


journalism


and


public


relations


remain


largely


inter-dependent.


Studies


about


Credibility,


Status


Professionalism


Feldman


(1961a,


1961b)4


was


first


of several


researchers


to utilize


a Likert-type


attitude


scale


with


pro


A popular,


unscientific


poll


was


carried


out


last


year by
subseque
reported


relat
wease
journ
said
perce
Inter
the i
perce
Journ
credit
perce
stori
pierce
and c
and p
perce
is in
1985;
issue
"unsk


ion
Is.
all
the
nt
est
nfo
nt
ali
ted
nt
es,
nt
onf
rac
nt
flu
Le
S S
ill


,-- -------


the Asso
ntly wid
that tw
s practi
At the
sts admi
y get ha
said the
ingly, 7
rmation
reported
sts resp
public
of health
60 perc
of local
wounding
titioner
or more
enced by
e & Solo
offering
ed or no


c
e
o
t

t
1
y
9
g

o
r
h
e

t
s
o


lated
ly pu
-thir
ioner
same
ted t
f the
used
perc
iven
how t
nding
elati
stor
nt of
news
he st
are
f the
nubli


mon,
poo
pub
~- U.


s a
tim
hey
ir
PR
ent
by
hey
to
ons
ies
li
sto
rai
est
co


ess w
shed
of jo
nd se
e, 81
need
stori
sour
of r
PR pe
chec
the
prac
, 75
festy
ries
ned r
imate
ntent
elati
; Sal
s cov


ire
acr
urn
ven
pe
PR
es
ces


ser
oss
alis
in
rcen
pra
from
on


and


was


country


10
t o
cti
PR
eve:


esponaen
ople for
k the fa
informal
titioner
percent
le featu
(Hampson
relations
s that a
of news
ons (Cut
lot, 199
erage ar


lations"


ts
a
ct4
p
s


"don
like
f re
tion
pra
ry s
sai
ccur
s (H
oil
with


betwe
s much
cover
lip, C
0). S
e the


(Sandman


't t
ned
spon
ers,
ctit
tory
d th
acy,
amps
repo
gen
erta
ries


J
en
as
age


The


rust" p
them to
ding
38 per
loners.


ey v
but
on,
rted
erat
inme
,.an
Comp
ourn
25-5
in t


enter &
ome sugg
issues w
Rubin &


poll
public


cent
17


eri
on
199
by


i
n
d
1
a
0
h
B
e
i


ng
t


16
icating
lists

e U.S.
room,
st that
th


A r \


i








and


con


statements


about


public


relations


survey


journalists


and


public


relations


practitioners


about


their


perceptions


of public


relations


All


the


studi


have


found


discrepancies


in the


attitudes


the


two


groups


. Some


studi


used additional


measures


gauge


similarity


and


differences


between


the


two


groups


dimensions


such


as occupational


status


prof


ess


ionalism.


Aronoff


(1975)


four-part


study


involved


48 Texas


newspaper


journalists


area


practitioners


the


sec


tion


replicating


Feldman


s attitude


survey,


Aronoff


found


generally


negative


attitudes


toward


public


relations


journalists


positive


attitudes


practitioners


many


public


, although


journalists


relations


"most


acknowl


public


edge


process


relations


contribution


news


practitioners


made


production"


. 51).


Journali


compare


mean

d wit


scores


on the summed


practitioners


mean


attitude


score


sca


60.6


was

, and


an expected


score


Aronoff


findings


replicated


Feldman


s earlier


reports.


Later


studi


(Kopenhaver


5 T
include:


typical
"Publi


attitude


-scal


relations


statements


press


in 1
are


these


studi


partners


es
Ln the


ssemination


does


work


news,


" "The


newspaper


public


that


relations


would


otherwi


practitioner
se ao undone


"Public r
accurate,


relationss
complete


practitioners


often


practitioners


and
act


timely


help


news,


reporter
-i -- S


" "PUnliC


as obstructionists


obtain


relations


, keeping


reporters


"Pnhl ir


from


ral atti nnns


the people


mattfri a 1


they


really


; n

should
nnhl in


see


sal i e,


| |-V l t


r








Martinson,


Ryan,


1984;


Sallot,


1990)


replicated


the


earlier


works


with


professional


subj ects


Kopenhaver,


Martinson


and


Ryan


surveyed


47 editors


of Florida


newspapers


and


57 members


Public


Relations


Society


America


(PRSA)


South


50 working-


Florida

Florida,


Sallot

53 PRSA


journalist


s sample


members


members


included


66 PRSA


in metropolitan


Society


New


of Prof


members

York,


ess


ional


Journal


(SPJ)


South


Florida,


and


35 working


journalist


members


in metropolitan


New


York.


Aronoff


(1975)


also


asked


two


groups


of subjects


rank


order


their


own


news


values


the


news


values


they


perceived


held


other


group


Journalists


ranked


news


values


consistently


themselves


how


they


thought


practitioners


would


rank


them.


However,


values


held


journalists


were


virtually


opposite


those


they


perceived


practitioners


to hold.


While


ess


agre


ement


about


news


values


, practitioners


saw


their


own


values


very


similar


those


they


perce


ived


journalists


to hold


and


the


values


reported


practitioners


were


very


similar


those


actually


reported


journal


Consequently


practitioners


' perceptions


of journalists


' reported


values


were


accurate


correlated


highly


with


journalism


reported


values


while


journalists


perceptions


practitioners


' reported


values


were


highly


inaccurate.







Aronoff's


method


measure


news


values


was


incorporated


into


follow-up


studi


(Kopenhaver


Martinson


, & Ryan,


1984;


Sallot,


1990


with


similar


res


ults


Such


valuations


journalists of


ctitioners


' news


values


thought


contribute


credibility


journal


assign


practitioners


In addition


Aronoff


(197


used


rank


orderings


subjects


16 occupations


measure


perceptions


of status


Journalists


ranked


themselves


st and


practitioners


last


Practitioners


ranked


journalists


third


and


spot


below


journalists


themselves


, indicating


perceptions


almost


equal


status.


replicated


Kopenhaver


Aronoff


s static


, Martinson,

us measure w


and


rith


Ryan

a few


(1984)

differences


results


Journali


rank


these


ves


st and


practitioners


next


-to-la


Practitioners


ranked


themsel


ves


fourth,


in the


Aronoff


study


but


journalists


ninth.


To study


credibility


of practitioners


Aronoff


(197


asked


only


journalis


t subjects


to read


and


evaluate


four


feature


stori


es:


half


read


stories


attribut


to fictional


practitioners


half


were


attributed


to fictional


journalists


The


journal


evaluated


the


stories


using


semantic


differential


scales


measuring


writing


quality,


newsworthin


ess


interest,


generally


objectivity


favored


, originality


stori


, and


attributed


style


journalists


Journalists


, and


practitioners


were


found


to be


low-cr


edibility


sources


journalists


Combining


findings


with


the


attitude


sca








results,


practitioners


are


seen


as highly


motivated


communicators


with


something


to gain


from


acceptance


their


messages.


The


perceived


self-


interests


the public


relations


advocates


interfere


with


their


credibility,


least


for


audiences


consis


ting


journalism


Studies


about


Professionalism


Ethi


Jeffers


(1977)


studied


expectations


that


journalists


and


practitioners


have


one


another


developing


questionnaire


with


items


focusing


on skill


and


ethi


and


cooperation-competitiveness


Surveyed


were


newspaper


journalists


and


45 public


relations


practitioners


Ohio.


For


the ethi


and


skill


items,


subjects


were


asked


to record


general


perceptions


their


opposite


group


, then


answer


again


members


their


opposite


group


with


whom


they


have


regular


contact


, and


third


time


their


own


group.


journalists


respect;


, familiarity


practitioners,


with


familiarity


practitioners


with


breeds


journal


breeds


contempt.


Journal


believed


practitioners


general


lacked


ethi


, but


those


with


whom


they


had


regular


contact


were


significantly


more


ethical;


practitioners


evaluated


the ethics


of specific


journalists


lower


than


journalists


in general


Regarding


skills


and


ethi


journalists


had


higher


expectations


themselves


than


either


Jeffers


' questionnaire


included


items


such


"Newsmen


sic)


are


much


more


skilled


than


public


relations


practitioners


" "Public


relations


practitioners


are


about







general


or specific


practitioners


while


practitioners


had


slightly


higher


expectations


journalists


in g


general


than


themselves


Journali


perceived


their


relationships


with


practitioners


as slightly


cooperative;


practitioners


see


it much


more


Again,


perceived


self-interests


public


relations


advocates


interfere


with


their


credibility


journal


, at


eas


t until


individual


journal


st gets


to know


individual


practitioner


But


increase


d contact


between


two


prof


ess


ional


types


does


change


journal


' generally


negative


stereotypes


of practitioners


on the


whole


Studi


about


ponsibilitv


Reputation


their


relations


with


journalists


, public


relations


practitioners


may


their


own


worst


enemies


To


inves


tigate


practitioners


' perceptions


reasons


journal


negative


views


, the


extent


to whi


ch practitioners


are


responsible


them


, and


validity


views


, Ryan


Martinson


(1988)


developed


Likert


-type


attitude


scales


surveyed


PRSA


members


affiliated


with


organs


zations


10
public
experie
general


more
some


Items


included


relations


nces


they


feeling


important


the


"Many


persons


have
among


soc;


antagonism


are


had
many
iety


journalists


based


with


on the


'bad


journal


than


public


journal


that


stereotypes
negative


apples


their


relations


toward


I "A
work


acc


ounts


public


relations,


the


res


journal
enough t


" "Publi


relations


ponsibility


because


'-


elimina


I-


practitioners


negative


they
the


have
'bad


not
aoole


must


attitudes


police


s' who


their


Clve


bear
many
ranks


A A


fiel


part


well
d a


I


I


I








Their


findings


suggest


that


many


practitioners


think


that j

matter


journalists


what


' negative


practitioners


attitudes

do because


will


journalists


pers

are


biased


and


view


their


work


as more


important


than


that


practitioners


derive


partly


from


negative


experiences


with


the


inept


or unprofessional


practitioners


who


fail


to fill


the


journalists


' need


clear,


concise,


accurate


information;


endure


from


practitioners


' inabiliti


to educate


journalists


about


public


relations.


Ryan


and


Martinson


s subjects


were


practitioners


only


Sallot


(1990)


replicated


Ryan


and


Martin


son


s work


part


using


eight


their


items,


surveyed


journalists


as well


as practitioners.


two


groups


agreed


that


journalists


believe


that


their


work


more


important


to society


than


public


relations,


which


may


account


some


journal


antagonism.


Journal


also


believe


that


practitioners


bear


part


the


res


ponsibility


journalists


' negative


attitudes


because


practitioners


are


response


poli


cing


the


peripheral


'bad


apples


practitioners


blame


journalists


journalists


' inflated


' negative


views


their


experiences


own


with


status


the


and


'bad


apples


the


negative


attitudes


toward


public


relations


Practitioners


also


believe


that


journalists


' dim


views


public


relations


are


not


justified.


Journal


blame


practitioners


---


being


unprofessional


and


insuffi


ciently








are


justified.


Although


some


ases


against


public


relations


are


unfair


, they


are


widely


accepted


and


stubbornly


held.


Studies


about


Roles


. Ethics


Profess


ionalism


Using


Starck


a role


(1989)


theory


applied


perspective


Q-methodology


Talbott


to four


and


categories


--personal


characteristic


, rights


duti


, and


skills


--to study


cross


perceptions


journalists


and


practitioners.


Fifty


-four


statements


were


derived


from


journalism


public


relations


texts


and


professional


codes.


Fourteen


journalists,


from


a variety


news


media


who


had


gatekeeping


powers


over


public


relations


material


15 public


relations


relations


responsibilities


practitioner


each


who


sorted


had


the Q-


media


statements


twice


once


according


to perceptions


their


own


group


, then


ceived


the


other


group.


Order


was


random


zed;


statements


were


reshuffled


between


sortings.


QUANAL


analy


S1S


yie


Aided


distinct


factors


and


found


that


attitudes


between


groups


differed


sharply


about


role


of public


relations


issues


such


freedom


press,


balance


, objectivity,


aggressiveness


protection


public


erest


, withholding


information

construct


diplomacy,


interesting


previous


messages.


experience


Relevant


and

this


ability


discussion


that


journalists


viewed


public


relations


practitioners








having


hidden


agendas


, withholding


information,


and


compromising


ethics.


Studies


about


Ethics


Roles


Saunders


(1989)


investigated


perceptions


of ethics


the


part


pra


ctitioners


surveying


95 members


the


Florida


Public


Relations


Association


with


open-ended


questions


probing


their


encounters


with


ethical


decisions


the


practice


of public


relations.


Sixty-two


percent


reported


facing


ethical


dilemmas


routinely


or often


most


commonly


concerning


withholding


information.


Sometimes


journalists


are


held


captive


practitioners


, who


not


only


control


access


to the


newsmakers,


but


actually


may


create


divided

telling


and


control


loyalties

everything


the


news.


between

they k


Sometimes


media


now"


"pounding


practitioners


them


management


suffer


not


pounding


them


"for


telling


much"


Saunders


found


that


second


most


common


category


ethical


dilemmas


concerned


lying.


Respondents


had


problem


recognize


these


situations,


nor


did


they


question


the

lie


morality


or should


lying.


they


Rather,


One


they q

quoted,


questionedd


should


soliciting


they

funds


the


job)


. I


must


frequently


evasive,


half-


truthful


or untruthful.


often


suggested


management


that


we should


manufacture


a crisis


gain


increased


public


support"


26)


Nearly


twenty


percent


Saunders'


26).








to determine


what,


any,


kind


of deci


sion-making


responsibilities

A nationwide


these r

survey


respondents


journalist


their

s and


work.

105


practitioners


Ryan


Martinson


(1991)


found


that


journalists


public


relations


practitioners


hold


similar


views


about


what


and


lying


when


respondents


were


supplied


firing


problems


information


of a basketball


facing


about


hypothetical


coach,


a research


nuclear


laboratory.


events


waste


Neither


the


disposal


group


cons


iders


refusal


to comment


and


giving


evasive


answers--


failing


lying.


tell


whole


In contrast


truth


, deliberately


telling


telling


an untruth--


an untruth


and


denying


rumors


known


to be


true


are


considered


lying.


Practitioners


journal


disagreed


about


whether


practitioners


when


without


being


asked,


they


do not


volunteer


information


intrinsically


important


story.


The


groups


also


disagreed


whether


practitioners


act


ethi


call


when


they


withhold


information


about


sponsor


deci


sions


, events


or situations


even


when


such


withholding


might


affect


publics


negatively.


The


authors


concluded


that


journalists


expect


practitioners


to withhold


relevant


information


because


journalists


"know


practitioners


are


not


free


to be


open


because


they


work


others


who


presumably


are


ess


than


candid"


13) .


In other


words


, advocates'


self


-interests


cause


advocates


to be


seen


less


than








Such


the


withholding


practitioner


information


s control


may


, as Saunders


always


' (1989)


be under


research


suggested.


Practitioners


' behavior


these


instan


ces


may


more ac

culture


curately


than


reflect


their


the


personal


lack


of ethi


morality


in organizational


a conclusion


supported


Ryan


(1987)


study


reported


the


beginning


this


section.


Studi


about


Effects


Education


survey


Pincus


, Rimmer


, Rayfield


and


Cropp


(1991)


business


, news


and


sports


editors


' perceptions


practitioners


reinforced


earlier


studi


but


noted


that


editors


who


had


completed


college


courses


in public


relations


viewed


public


relations


more


positively


than


editors


who


did


not


, presumably


because


such


courses


are


pro


-PR and


the


editors


a better


understanding


of public


relations.


the


other


hand


, there


evidence


that


college


courses


Aronoff


journalism


s work


are


Habermann,


anti-PR.


Another


Kopenhaver


and


replication

Martinson


(1988)


--this


editorial


and


one


surveying


public


relations


university

sequences


faculty in news-

nationwide--found


that


news


-editorial


faculty


hold


even


more


negative


attitudes


toward


public


relations


than


their


prof


ess


ional


counterparts


And


Cline


(198


conducted


content


analy


ses


- a


introductory


mass


communication


texts


to discover


that








Primary


Issues


Influencing


Reputation


interesting


that


there


is considerable


concern


expressed


public


relations


research


literature


about


reputation


of public


relations


, but


that


there


have


been


relatively


attempts


measure


, and


those


have


been


limited


mostly


narrow


interest


groups


, such


journalists.


Thi


study


will


attempt


to explore


further


the


question


"What


do people


think


about


public


relations?"


The


literature


practitioners


on conflict


spotlight


between


primary


journal


issues


that


and


threaten


the


reputation


credibility


of public


relations


and


that


will


addressed


ulterior


motives


present


of practitioners


research--perceptions


, affected


practitioners


' advocacy


fueled


presumed


self-


inter


ests


of clients


or sponsors


problems


with


perceived


lack


of professionalism


of practitioners


(Aronoff,


1975;


Belz


, Talbott,


Starck


, 1989;


Feldman


, 1961a


, 1961b;


Jeffers


, 1977;


Kopenhaver,


Ryan,


Martinson,


1984;


Ryan


Martin


son,


1988


, 1991;


Sallot,


1990;


Saunders


, 1989)


The


third


issue


major


concern


this


study


how


communication


style


or strategy


in public


relations


affects


reputation.


These


three


issues


will


be discussed


more


detail


later


in the


chapter.


Advocacy


Publi


Relations


Webster


s Ninth


New


Collegiate


dictionary


defines


T








defends


or maintains


a cause


or proposal.


Defined


as such,


advocacy


seems


to have


been


integral


to public


relations


since


dawning


As early


as 1928,


Bernays


described


practitioners


"special


pleaders


who


seek


to create


public


acceptance


a particular


idea


or commodity"


. 47)


The


view


seems


as valid


today


Nager


Allen


(1984)


point


out


that


even


organic


zations


with


excellent


customer


and


media


relations


"may


be summoned


before


court


of public


opinion


well


as the


courts)


when


is per


ceived


that


damage


has been


done


just


to protect


so-called


image"


. 297


-298)


Likewise


, Cutlip,


Center


, and


Broom


(1985)


maintain


effectively


plea


that

d the


public

cause


relations m

of a client


ust


"ethically


or organic


zation


the


forum


of public


debate"


. 450


-451).


a survey


of corporate


manager


about


expectations


their


public


relations


practitioners


, Fegley


(1978)


reports


that


top


corporate


management


expects


practitioners


to craft


consistent


and


honest


interest


messages


ensure


that


accuracy


advocate


based


the


on sound


company


research;


exercise


authority


based


on under


standing


the


subject


and


Imaae


used


here


sense


"earned


reputation.


The


authors


cite


criticism


of Disneyland


emergency


medical


procedures


in their


scusslion.


Health


and


community


leaders


charged


theme


park


* I


with
_ *


* S


I


L








expert


possess


a professional


style


characterized


clarity,


brevity


, forcefulness


, and


organization.


term


advocacy


does


seem


to be a popular


descriptor


of public


relations


nor


advocate


prac


titioner


in public

popular i


reference


relations


introductory


to advocacy


texts


A review


textbooks


in public


indi


field


relations


ces


reveals


in only


nine

a brief


one


Seitel


four


, 1989)


character


Seitel

stic "at


suggests


titudes


that


that


advocacy


public


is one


relations


profes


sional


ought


to possess"


. 69).


Although


indexed


, Cutlip


, Center


and


Broom


(1985)


present


Soc


justification


public


relations


in a


free


society"


with


argument


that


to obtain


full


fair


hearing


public


forum


. the


individual,


idea,


institution


needs


the


exp


ertise


a skilled


in a modern


dep


endent


advocate.


democracy


on the


recon


advocate


responsive
ciliation


s rol


of private


is ess
public


and


ential


will


and


public


interests


* (p.


451)


Thus,


their


view


, public


relations


practitioners


fulfill


the


advocate


Few


references


to advocacy


se have


appeared


recent


public


relations


research


literature


Among


the


exceptions


Bivins


(1989a


1989b


, 1993)


visualiz


prof


ess


ional


roles


public


relations


on a continuum


with


"technician"


anchoring


one


"mediator"


the other,


suggests


that


techni


cans


practice


advocacy


while


mediators


nr nrniica 11rc


ar nrr


nrat a a i


yrLc rn r r


3 rrn d a c


1--


.' *-r


r


T r~\r







rol


public


relations


In this


model,


public


relations


varying


practitioners


degrees


are


according


seen


to advocate


to circumstances,


, perhaps


but


to advocate


neverthele


SS.


The


model


assumes


that


advocacy


is an inherent


component


of public


relations


and


cannot


be separated


from


the


practice


, and


that


public


relations


nature


involves


intended


advocacy


, at least


under


those


conditions


which


public


relations


practitioners


act


professionally.


Within


the


framework


thi


model


, and


applying


Pavlik


(1987)


definition


of public


relations,


a public


relations


practitioner


is an advocate


who


the


business


managing


relationships


on behalf


client


or sponsor


who


is paying


the


practitioner


to represent


Some


appear


uncomfortable


with


such


a notion.


Grunig


(with


. Grunig


, 1990)


wrote


that


"many,


not


most


, practitioners


consider


themselves


to be advocates


or defenders


their


organi


zations


cite


the


advocacy


tern


in law


as an analogy


" (p.


, but


. Grunig


1992


views


advocacy


as an "unsolved


problem"


public


relations


and


asks,


"how


in giving


advice


to clients


can


a consultant


public


relations


without


weakening


her


independence?"


Indeed


, the


question


warrants


further


study


Kruckeberg


Starck


(1988)


note


that


"despite


few


voices


contrary


, public


relations








practitioners


educators


who


responded


to a recent


poll


were


mixed


as to whether


practitioners


should


function


as advocates


, work


to build


consensus


, do both


, or


play

Moti


some


ves


other


role


Advocacy


(Katzman


Public


, 1993).

c Relations


While


appears


one


dimension


involve


persuasio


advocacy

n, another


in public

r appears


relations

to be


conce


rned


with


moti


ves


, specifically


self-interest


versus


public


interests.


self-interest


the


purp


in public


interests


oses


relations


client


this


will


or sponsor


scusslon,


be assumed


whom


include


the


practitioner


advocating.


Assuming


an historical


overview


while


contemplating


public


relations


from


a rhetorical


perspective


Heath


(199


, 1992b)


address


ses


issue


of self-intere


st and


standards


truth


knowledge.


He suggests


that


public


relations


can


be expect


to be


truthful,


honest,


candid


two


reasons


because


each


statement


a public


relations


self-intere


arouses


practitioner


, (the)


suspicion"


"made


presence


source


in terms


apparent


sponsor


self-interest


s credibility;


and


The


were


invited


poll


was


to mail


conducted


their


unsc


ientifi


opinions


cally;
Results


readers


are


general


zable.


Toth


Hsath


(1992qq


defi np


rh0 torin c


a a


"nne-wav


n -i


n ilj


fr


Sn







rhetoric


stimulates


action,


"its


worth


only


as good


candor


and


truthfulness"


(Heath,


1992b,


46-47).


Certainly,


Heath's


views


warrant


investigation


, and


the


issue


of how


perceived


motive


affects


credibility


reputation


will


be addressed


this


study.


Possibly


visualizing


critical


studies


of his


own


work,


Heath


deceit


(1992c)


and


introduces


manipulation


and


dispatches


as a narrow


the


view


question


the


rhetorical


roots


of public


relations


He observes


that


practitioners


as well


as scholars


may b
used
concl
decei
ends
would
pract
there
under
less
Th
antit
public
state
as fa
Rheto
state
conte
demon


e dis
to as
usion
*t ma:


w


influe
of oth
defini
(pp. 3


, *
ere
be
ce
is
inn
one
as
eti
re
ent
as
ic
ent


turbed


(i
l


t of
trate
nce,
ers,
tion


ert se
, this
ipulat
nsepar
rd to
public
ason t
gs of
n is j
rtion
to the
tions
the a
others
n our
s part
ideas.
s that
there
they s


are


the


f-i
par
on,
ble
ust
re
be
ubl
sti


f the
symme


notion


eres
igm
nd t
rom
y ev
tion
once
rel
ed.
sel
try


statement
assertion
are will
democrat
of a deb
The his
as corpo
ore tread
uffer con


self


that


t. Carri
brings up
thought co
a rhetoric
en though
s. Viewe
rned abou
nations.


f-interest


pa
CO:
f
g


C
te
or
at
ng
tri


-regulating


radig:
mpete
self-
to al
ontex
--the
y of
ions
on t
aints


and


s a
int
low
t)
vi
pub
exe
he


self


public


ed t
the
ntro
c pa
it
d th
t th
Seen


O


c r
on
spe

adi
omi
s n
rh


more


paradigm


T


1
4


lations
set of
ter of
f these
m, it
ates the
rrowly,
torical


broadly,

is not


. Because
nst other
st can onl
to do. .
umes that
ous public
relations
too much
f-interest
. Systems


y

e


each

go

ach


S
by


-correcting.


17-318)


Heath's


allusion


"symmetry


paradigm"


refers


one


the


most


popular


research


paradigms


that


has


dominated


public


relations


research


ten


years--popularly


!


.







Grunia


s Four


Models


of Public


Relations


Grunig


(1989)


argued


that


public


relations


needs


shed


manipulative


image


, which


he calls


asymmetrical


and


which


he suggests


is a product


of public


relations'


historical


preoccupation


with


persuasion.


As a sub


stitute,


proposes


relations


a two-way


dedicated


symmetrical


managing


perspective


conflict


of public


promoting


understanding,


earning


of public


acceptance


consent


instead


engine


ering


of consent.


In 1984,


Grunig


Hunt


conceptualized


along


several


dimensions


what


they


called


four


models


of public


relations.


The


four


models


are:


press


agentry/publicity


model,


or one-way


one-way


asymmetric;


symmetric;


public


two-way


information


asymmetric


model,


mod


two-way


symmetric


model.


The dimensions


include


purp


ose


intent,


dominant


communication


nature


style,


of research


communication


practiced,


model


where


patterned


model


after,


practiced,


and


an estimate


discussion


of percentage


of each


four


total


models


practice


follows.


The


Dress


aqentrv/publicitv


model


(one-way


asymmetric)


involves


a propaganda-driven


public


relations


which


seeks


media


circus


attention


huckster


cost.


. Barnum.


storical


It relies


prototype


on a source-to-







receiver

essential


communication

in one-way c


model


in which


communication.


truth


Very


is non-


little


research


conducted


the


practice


model


, and


that


mostly


consisting


of count-the-tickets


-sold


evaluations.


Grunig


and


Hunt


(1984)


thought


model


was


most


popular


sports,


theater


and


product


promotion


, and


they


estimated


15 percent


of contemporary


public


relations


practiced


The


public


information


model


(one-way


symmetric)


consis


news


-bureau


-type


public


relations


staffed


practitioners


who


journalist


s-in


-residence,


and


who


tell


the


truth


as sources


news


media,


but


who


do not


out


their


way


to volunteer


negative


information.


The


model


s primary


purpose


is to disseminate


information


via


simple


source


-receiver,


one


-way


communication


on behalf


of government


agencies


non


-profit


organic


zations


and


business


entiti


es.


Research


secondary,


and


consists


message


effectiveness


measures


, such


as readability


studi


es.


historical


prototype


Lee,


a practitioner


in the


early


1900s


who


promoted


open


honest


press


relations


behalf


of hi


relations

The


corporate


practice

two-way


was


clients.


thought


asymmetric


model


Half

use

uses


public


this


model


two-way


communication


in a manipulative


fashion


to research


identify


persuasive


messages


most


likely


gain


compliance


from


target


publics


without


affecting


sponsoring







receiver


communication model.


It relies


on formative


research


to evaluate


public attitudes


toward


an organization


and


to determine how to


promote


the organization most


effectively to


those


publics.


It was


thought


to account


20 percent


practice by


business entities and


public


relations


firms.


historical


patron


is Bernays.


The two-wav


symmetric model


uses conflict


resolution


communication strategies to


bring


about


change


in attitudes,


opinions


and behaviors


the organization


as well


publics,


with


the


intended


outcome of


the balanced


exchange


between


the organization and


understanding.


Its hallmark


publics


being mutual


communication style


is two-way,


with balanced


effects


for the


participants.


Relying


formative research


believed


to evaluate


to be most popular


understanding,


among


the model


regulated businesses


was

and


public


relations


firms,


accounting


15 percent


practice.


Historical


prototypes are Bernays and Scott


Cutlip,


a retired


educator


and author


the


field.


Influenced


by Dewev and Bentlev


Grunig's


four models


are


very similar


to Dewey


Bentley's


(1949,


1973)


classic distinctions


among types of


scientific procedures.


Both appear to


utilize


systems


perspective.


Grunig's models


are reminiscent


Dewey


and Bentley's


action or


self-action


process,


"pre-


scientific presentation


terms


of presumptively







Bentley


interaction


process


"presentation


particles


or other


ects


organized


as operating


upon


one


another"


(Dewey


Bentley


, 1949


* 73);


and


Grunig


s model


recall


Dewey


Bentley


s transaction


process,


"functional


necessary


observation


inquiry


(the)


some


full


stages


system


, held


, actively


in reserve


other


older


stages


verbal


, frequently


impactions


requiring


of naming"


the


breaking


(Dewey


down


& Bentley,


1949


Before


developing


1984


models


, and


discussing


model


organic


national


communication


behavior


as givers


and


seekers


information,


. Grunig


(1976)


suggested


two


dimensions


situation


to explain


an individual


recognition


s relationship


of a problem


the


with


situation,


and


recognition


of constraints


limiting


behavior.


Grunig


(1976,


attributed


the


first


to Dewey


(1938


theory


inquiry,


which


propo


ses


that


individual


seek


and


make


use


information,


or think,


only


when


faced


with


uncertain


automatic


situations.


patterns


of past


Otherwise


behavior


, they


rely


or intelligent


habits


(Dewey


, 1922).


. Grunig


(1992a)


again


cites


Dewey


influence


with


regard


to problem


recognition


adds


cre


Dewey


conceptual


zation


, expanded


Blumer


(1966)


, that


publics--or


special-interest


audiences--may


form


in response







experiencing


common


problems


, they


can


evolve


into


organized


and


powerful


activist


groups


engaging


collective


behavior"


. Grunig


, 1992a,


138).


Grunig


s models


are


useful


in suggesting


that


there


are


different


approaches


to the


practice


of public


relations


with


regard


purpose,


historical


development,


communic


action


style,


research,


organizational


goals


, and


practical


application.


Grunig


(1989


suggests


that


theories


relating


to propagandistic


techniques


best


apply


to model


public


theories


systems


information


to model


, pragmatics


campaigns


persuasion


diffusion


rhetoric


coorientation


conflict


innovations


to model


resolution


theories


to model


Advocacy


and


Grunic


s Models


The


concept


advocacy


public


relations


was


seemingly


ignored


earliest


research


literature


regarding


Grunig


s models


(Grunig


Hunt,


1984;


. Grunig


Grunig


, 1989)


More


recent


discu


sslons


advocacy


and


Grunig


(199


s models


suggests


present


inconsistent


practitioners


views.


applying


Grunig


two-way


symmetric


mode


serve


more


as mediators


than


as advocates"


and


that


advocacy


remains


an "unsolved


problem"


public


relations


. 72)


More


puzzling


suggestion


Grunig

public


(1992a


that


relations


professionals


combining


two-way


who


practice


symmetric


"excellent"


asymmetric








publics


or audiences


no allowance


advocates


emphasis


added).


of conflicting


self-


Grunig


and


makes


public


interests


who


fail


at negotiating


the


conflict.


The


present


thesis


argues


that


Grunig


s models


clearly


allow


self-


interest


advocacy


, but


that


model


does


not.


Perhaps


possible


to advocate


two


interests


when


they


coincide


, but


what


happens


when


the


advocate


called


upon


to "represent"


competing


interests


the


sponsor


and


the


public?


. Grunig


(1989)


argues


that


such


conflicts


may


be negotiated.


On another


occasion,


Grunig


and


Grunig


(1990)


cited


Keltner


(1987,


and


Jandt


(1985,


and


wrote


that


a third
conflict


mentioned


third


pra


party


who


cannot


is perceived


function


lawyers


parties


ctitioners


relations


the


lite


cannot


rature


we woul


Thus,


as a party


as a mediator


couns
d inc


elors
lude


-way


be described


does


sugge


as suc
public


symmetric
as media


that


public


h


Keltner


non


-neutral


relations
al public
ion, although
relations


people


success


could
fully


bring


in mediators


collaborate


with


when


publics


they
of


cannot
an


organi


zation


to reach


a negotiated


order


seems


reasonable


to ask


what


happens


when


compromise


fails


Under


condition


of unresolvable


conflicts


between


client


public


, one


approach


is to


argue,


as thi


thesi


does


, that


practitioner


cannot


advocate


two


more)


conflicting


interest


, and


one


may


then


presume


model


unworkable.


This


does


mean


that


conscionable


advo


cates


cannot


coun


their


clients


. (p


. 40)








thesis


argues


that,


in part,


is this


kind


of counseling


that


elevates


Additional


practice to a


Criticisms of


Gruniq


profession.


s Models


As originally


conceptualized


the models


proved


to have


some other


limitations


in application:


their


characteristics tend


to overlap and blur,


further


evidence


the ambiguity


fluidity


inherent


in public relations.


Initially,


Grunig


conceptualized


public-information


model


as the dominant model


in contemporary practice,


accounting


as much as


50 percent


practice.


However,


subsequent research


(Grunig,


1989)


seems


indicate

models t

overall;


that


ogethe


in reality

r. with th


-


organizations


practice several


e press-agentry the most


public-information model


the most


popular


popular with


governmental


agencies


, but also


the most difficult


isolate


because


seldom practiced


alone;


two-


way


asymmetrical


the most


popular


in corporations.


When


practiced,


likely to


two-way


be applied


symmetrical model


in combination with


is now thought


two-way


asymmetrical.


Grunig


(1989)


reported


some studies


have


found


that


organizations


using the


two-way


symmetric model


were


"effective,


" while campaigns categorized by the other


three


models were


less effective or


effective


at all


Grunig,


1986;


Turk,


1986) .


However,


these


"conclusions"


are







practiced the


two-way symmetric model


and all had


failed


their negotiations with a result


litigation


or continued


conflict.


The conclusion seems


premature


that


the two-way


symmetrical model,


although


the model


was


absent,


provided


"the only hope of


success"


since


the model


was


not


tested


and


alternative explanations were not explored.


In another


study


of how the news media


used publicity


handouts,


or what


she called


information subsidies,


from


state


agencies


in news coverage,


Turk


(1986)


tested


the


hypothesis


(among


others)


that


public


information representatives of


who view their role as providers of


state


agencies


persuasive


"propaganda"
agencies are


that


serves


less successful


interests of


their


in obtaining newspaper


acceptance and


use of


their news releases


and


other


"handouts"


than are


public


information representatives


who view themselves merely
regardless of whether that


Her method was


as providers of
information is


to categorize each


information
persuasive.


of six cabinet-level


departments


of state


in Louisiana


into one of


Grunig's


four


models


of public relations


behavior


based


"information


supplied by their


highest-ranking public relations


official"


In her


analysis,


Turk


collapsed data


from


one


agency representing the two-way


symmetric model


and


from


agencies


representing the two-way


asymmetric model


into one


category.


This calls


into question J.


Grunig


(1989)


assertion


that


"Turk


(1986)


also


found


that only


one


state


agency used


the


two-way


symmetrical


model.


The other models







Also,


scales


developed


measure


four


Grunig


models


alphas


have


ranging


suffered


, for


from


example,


chronically


from


only


reliability,


with


across


seven


studies


. Grunig


& L.


Grunig,


1990).


Application


of Grunicq'


Models


This


Study


Grunig


field


s models


generating


have


contributed


a substantial


body


immeasurably


of research.


the


More


needed


, particularly


regarding


"slippery"


model


However


, the


models


are


particularly


meaningful


the


present


study


identifying


issues


to be


investigated


an experiments.


Most


important


the


issue


of motive


purpose

J. Gruni


in public


relations.


Grunig


, 1990)


The

note


Grunigs


that


. Grunig


, 1990;


practitioners


two-way


symmetric


model


are


expected


to be completely


altruistic


that


"exc


ellent"


public


relations


involves


"mixed-motive"


model,


ch they


characterize


as part


symmetrical


and


part


asymmetrical.


This


study


will


examine


how


different


kinds


of motives


--altruistic,


assigned--in


prosocial


a public


"mixed


relations


" selfish,


context


or no motive


impact


reputation


of public


relations


among


general


public.


Such


motives


will


be examined


from


perspective


impression


management


paradigm


social


psychology


to be


discussed


Chapter


Grunig


s models


identify


different


communication







in public


relations.


The


issue


of communication


style,


and


how


investigated


this


study,


will


be discussed


next.


Commun i


cation


Styles


Public


Relations


Grunig


s models


identify


styles


of communication


public


relations:


one-way


communication


, rooted


the


source-to-receiver


model;


two-way


communication,


involving


some


sort


of feedback


mechanism.


Good


communication


often


seen


as essential


the


success


any


public


relations


program


(see,


example,


De Loache,


1976)


Gibson


(1991)


considers


communication


the


variable


central


to the


practice,


and


argues


that


the


best


way


to understand


public


relations


is to study


communication


specifically


within


context


three


primary


functions


public


relations


informing


persuading,


or refuting.


But


what


constitutes


good


communication


public


relations


The


Grunigs


. Grunig


& L.


Grunig,


1990)


refer


one-way


communication,


ssemination


information,


as a


"monologue,


" and


two-way


as a


"dialogue,


exchange


information


clearly


find


two-way


preferable.


They


are


alone.


Several


definitions


public relations

condition of the


include

practice


two-way cc

(Kendall,


communication


Baxter,


as a

Pessolano,


1988).


Ohio


State


Univer


sity


Associate


Professor


of Public








have


picked


from


Ehling


(1984,


1985) ,


who


suggests


that


only


management


behaviors


involving


two-way


communication


constitute


public


relations.


However


, Heath


(1992b)


Toth


Heath


(199


identify

rhetoric


rhetoric a

1 post-hoc


s one-way co

evaluations


mmunication


speaker


ass


intent


oration,


environment,


effect


date


back


least


Greeks,


and


they


are


central


many


different


types


public


relations


efforts


conducted


today


(Heath,


1980).


Mid-century,


Bernays


(198


5/1955)


proposed


book


the


same


title


that,


to function


properly


, public


relations


must


apply


persuasion


to achieve


"the


engineering


of consent"


the


public.


Miller


(1989)


asserts


that


one-way


, persuasive


communication


ineffective;


on the


contrary,


highly


effective


method


that


humans


use


to attempt


to exert


control


over


their


environments


quest


the


natural
sense,


just


tapestry


and
then,


environmental


our


as pervasive
the concept


as breathing


inevitable


aspect


practice


or eating
of beina


of public


lives


control


a human


as breathing.


of seeking


is a crucial


activity
In this


control


fabric


as
broad


is amoral,


is amoral;


alive


relations


. (p.


scie


ntific


research


methods


often


provide


feedback


mechanism


two-way


communication,


which


practitioners


both


seek


information


from


give


information


to publics


. Grunig


& L.


Grunig


, 1990).


The


practice


uses


a variety


of methods


The







published


communications;


focus


groups;


and


1ssue


tracking


or environmental


scanning


trends


concern


to clients.


But


probably


the


most


popular


research


method


public


opinion


polling


or surveying


(Cutlip,


Center


Broom


, 1985;


Grunig


& Hunt


, 1984;


Seitel,


1989)


Although


there


were


skeptics


the


early


days


polling


after


the


turn


century


(Conver


1987),


and


although


those


who


have


never


participated


a poll


are


more


skeptical


(Koch,


1985,


cited


Asher


, 1988)


, today


people


are


aware


of polls


generally


find


polls


and


pollsters


credible


(Kohut,


1983;


Roper


, 1985)


Therefore,


different


in its


communication


examination

s strategies


the


on the


effects

public


evaluations


characterize


of public


one-way


relations,


communication


present


the


study


rhetorical


will


model


while


two


-way


communications


will


be portrayed


a polling


manipulation.


Prof


ess


ionalism


Publi


Relations


Prof


ess


ionalism


also


has


been


linked


with


Grunig


model


with


several


studi


reported


. Grunig


and


Grunig


(1990


. 20)


having


found


relation


ships


between


prof


ess


ionalism


two-way


model


As expected,


Who


accurately


would
reflect


believe


that


opinions


a sample


the


whole


could


country


T n aI n a 4 ar a 1


1l T-I 1 a


0 A na r r. an+4


Ha n rrl


r- r


t-l am








others have


found


links


between credibility


professionalism.


example,


in a


telephone


survey


practitioners


about how credibility


of public


relations


could be enhanced,


increased professionalism was cited most


often after


better


ethics,


with professional


accreditation


mentioned more often


than


licensing


as a means


accomplishing


increased professionalism


(Judd


, 1989)


It was


reported previously that


Bernays


(199


, 1993)


has


been


the most


vocal


proponent


licensing


practitioners


in public relations as a


way to enhance


credibility

profession.


position


practice and to


Others


(see,


have


example,


publicly


Forbes,


elevate


practice


to a


supported Bernays


1986).


Indeed,

the criteria


licensing


that


or certification


distinguishes mere


is considered


occupations


one of


from


professions.


Other


criteria


include


intellectualism,


a code


ethics,


greater


a comprehensive


self-governing


emphasis on public service


organization


than self-interests


such


as profits


, performance of


"unique and


essential


service


based


on a


substantial


body


of knowledge


" broad autonomy,


and


"having practitioners guided by


altruism"


(Wright,


1981,


51).


Others


have


vigorously


opposed


licensing


the


practice,


including the


Public


Relations Society


America


(PRSA


International Association


Business


Communicators


(IABC)18


(see,


example,


Baxter,


1986;







Lesly,


1986;


"What


Public


Relations


Leaders


Are


Saying,


1993)


The


opposition


reasons


that


government


involvement


would


ineffective,


restrictive


, unwelcome,


and


superfluous.


State


licensing


has


become


the


primary


means


regulating


occupations


serving


the


public.


There


are


estimates


that


as much


as one-third


work


force


directly


involved


in licensed


occupations


(Hogan,


1983b)


Rose


(1983)


notes


that


forces


on the


side


censing


across


prof


ess


ions


include


expertise


, tradition,


and


politics


forces


opposed


entail


individual


liberty


and


individualism


, theory


free


enterprise


, and


egalitarianism.
*


Hogan


(1983a)


argues


that


licensing


may


not


improve


quality


of profe


ssional


services


because


licensing


boards


often


fail


to di


scipline


errant


practitioners


, and


that


actions


taken


against


the


licensed


are


to be aimed


at eliminating


competition


as they


are


targeting


incompetence.


Further


detriments


cited


include


increased


costs


ineffecti


services

ve use o


creation


of shortages


f paraprofessionals


supply


impediments


needed


reforms


in education


, training


services.


Instead


licensing


he advocates


a registration


tern


for'


professionals


aspiring


prof


sessions


Wright


(1981)


surveyed


accredite


d members


of PRSA








in professional


organizations.


While


accredited


practitioners were


found to


be more


professional,


the


level


of professional


orientation was


still


low.


Although


legislation


introduce


licensing


in public


relations


was


introduced


in Bernays


' home state


Massachusetts


licensing


Australia


last spring,


of practitioners


recently adopted a


practitioners must be "q

for government contracts


no state has


as a standard.


policy that


accredited"


quality


("Australia


adopted


However,


firms


to be eligible

s," 1993).


demand


No known research has addressed


effects of


professionalism


in the


form of


licensing


in public relations


this country.


how the


Therefore,


public evaluates


present study will


public relations


examine


when


practitioners are


licensed and


when


they


are


not.


Implications


of Reputation


in Public


Relations


Of particular


interest


present


study


is research


concerning


reputation.


how source and message effects


persuasion research has


interact


postulated


to affect


that


three elements make


up source


valence:


credibility


attractiveness


power


(McGuire,


1969


, 1981).


Credibility


a source can be analyzed


according to


sources's apparent


expertise and


objectivity;


that


the source's perceived ability to


know the correct


stand







an issue,


and


source


s perceived


motivation


communicate


thi


information


without


bias


(McGuire,


1969


1981)


attitude


arguments


Manipulating


change


(Hovland,


source


credibility


extent


Jani


learning


Kelley,


affects


the


1953)


amount


source


summarize,


high


-credibility


sources


have


been


found


to produce


more


opinion


change


than


-credibility


sources


, but


there


difference


in message


learning.


Credibility


eady


been


seen


to be


important


issue


in public


relations


because


based


on the


realities


of behavior


as well


as favorable


perceptions;


"difficult


win


and


easy


lose";


and


increasing


"global


village"


pressures


are


expanding


boundaries


concern


about


reputations


(Newsom,


Scott


Turk,


1989


. 61).


Another


aspect


source


credibility


objectivity


The


ess


objective


a source


appears


and


the


more


an audience


suspects


a source


intends


to persuade,


the


ess


opinion


change


will


be produced


(McGuire


, 1969,


1981) .


source


who


stands


to profit


from


audience


s being


persuaded


judged


as being


ess


fair


tends


to produce


ess


opinion


change (H

Much

relations


oviand


Wei


research


reviewed


, 1951;


Hovland


regarding


chapter


the

see


Mandel


reputation


1952


of public


example,


Aronoff,


1975)


found


that


practtiioners were judigeto
P .. .. .. ....... .. .. g


\1:V s *


'







acceptance of


their messages.


Therefore,


the


present


study,


audience evaluations of


practitioner


are expected


to depend


public rela

on whether


tions


evaluators


perceive


practitioners'


motives


intentionally


serve


their


clients'


self-interests


It has


been established


that


the more


positive


the


reputation spectrum,


professionals who


practice


public relations and the chief


executive officers


they


serve


tend


to believe


that public relations may


be more


than


just


image-building,


that


can


entail


a sophisticated,


integrated


process


involving research,


strategic planning,


persuasive communication and counseling


of management.


Some


proponents go so


practitioners are


as to suggest


"applied social


that


public relations


and behavioral


scientists"


(Robinson,


1966,


Even


, more


often


than not,


public

with D


relations and


popular


practitioners


conceptions of


are


practice


forced

image


to contend

"fixing"


"spin doctoring.


The costs


attached


to public relations'


poor


reputation


might be considerable.


one,


Pavlik


(1987)


asserts


that


field's


tarnished


image has


kept many


scholars


in other


academic circles


from conducting research


in public


relations.


another,


some


public relations


practitioners


suffer


from poor professional


so demoralizing to do


battle w


self-esteem and have

ith public relations'


found

poor







Summarv


Proposed


Research


This


work


proposes


examine


how


the


public


sees


public


relations,


practitioners


and


corporate


sponsor


and


how


the


reputation


affected


different


motives--


altruism,


prosocial


or mixed,


selfish


, or none


assigned;


communications


strategies


--monologue


or dialogue;


and


profe


ssionalism


--licensed


or unlicensed


practitioners.


believed


that


the


impression


management


paradigm


can


help


bring


new


understanding


of public


relations


public


relations


scholarship


as well


as to


the


research


agenda


that


Ferguson


(1984)


proposed.


hoped


that


the


present


research


paradigm


research


in public


and


will


additional


relations


an advocacy


from


perspective


groundwork


impression


, to promote


future


management


greater


understanding


negative


reputation


of public


relations


and


to help


contain


any


damage


identifying


seeking


conditions


under


which


advocacy


does


not


cause


distrust


public


relations


sources.


The next


chapter


reviews


pertinent


research


from


impression


management


paradigm.














CHAPTER


IMPRESSION


MANAGEMENT


RESEARCH


Overview


of the


Impression


Management


Paradiqm


ression


management


is the


process


which


one


regulates


one


s own


behavior


cre


a particular


image


impression


on others


(Baumei


ster


, 1982;


Jones


Pittman,


1982


Leary


Weigold,


1989)


Kowalsk

Impr


i, 1990;

session m


Schlenker,


management


1980;


involves


Schlenker

the


regulating


or controlling


information


to achieve


desired


ecti


ves


and


to avoid


undesired


ones


It entails


the


editing


the


images


that


are


presented


a deliberate


attempt tc

construed,


construct

in accord


and

with


protect

consciol


identities


however


or unconscious


goals


the


impression


manager


(Schlenker,


1980).


this


editing


process


, on separate


occasions


, actors


may


choose


emphasis


one


attribute


one


audience


another


aspect


to a different


audience


(Schlenker


Weigold,


1989)


such


an instance


, what


actor


is presenting


is not


necess


arily


feigned


may


only


a salient


part


whole


that


might


have


been


present


(DePaulo


, 1991)


Such


controlling


information


facilitates


goal


achievement


, and


this


sense


impression


management







When

ones


one

elf


engages


impression


to be a particular


management


type


person,


to demonstrate


called


self-identification;


the


activity


of regulating


identity


primarily


real


imagined


others


referred


self-oresentation.


There


are


two


considerations


these


processes


self


-relevance,


and


who


constitutes


the


audien


ce.


The


term


impre


ssion


regulation


ers


goal-directed


activity


of controlling


information


and


subsumes


self-identification;


impression


management


describes


activity


of regulating


information


real


imagined


others


subsumes


self


-presentation


(Schlenker


Weigold, 1992).

Historical Roots


Widely


recognize


as the


"founding


father"


impression


management


Erving


Goffman


whose


Prese


nation


of Self


Everyday


Life


(1959)


has


served


as the


primary


dramaturgical 1


inspiration


the


paradigm.


Goffman


s view


that


the


world


s a stage


we are


but


play


ers


: we


select


present


ourselves


according


to scripts


those


in order


to play


our


parts


and


achieve


include


our


the


goals.


audience


dramaturgical


s applause


model,


curtain


goals


call


According


to Schlenker


(1980)


Goffman


was


very


much


influenced


symbolic


interactionist


movement


: Mead's


Mind,


Self


Society


(1934)


, and


Cooley


/1902)







identities.


The


symbolic


interactionists


were


in turn


influenced


the pragmatic


philosopher


William


James


, whose


conceptual


zation


sive


, judgmental


knowerr"


and


the empirical


"me"


as the


"known"


turn


influenced


Dewey


later


Mead


ideas


of self and


"generalized


other


Two


others


are


cited


Schlenker


(1980)


as having


contributed


paradigm


conceptually


the philosopher


. L.


impr


session


Austin


management


(1962/19


postulat


that


words


things


to people--that


people


can


manipulate


2 impressions


, the


idea


that


fundamental


the


paradigm.


Also,


Erich


Fromm


(1947


was


among


the


examine


20th


century


phenomenon


"marketing


personality


which


emerged


response


the


onset


need


to market


nationally


produ


in the


U.S


. that


were


longer


different


from


one


another


except


in their


images


Dewey


influenced


ideas


James


about


Grunig


"known"


s conceptions


and


the


of his


knowerr"


four


mode


public


relations,


reviewed


previous


chapter


No pejorative


sense


is meant


here.


Fromm


(1947)


wrote


that,


marketing


per


sell


per
is


sonality,


himself


sonality a
'cheerful,


'ambitious
he belongs


"suC


on the


cross,


depends
market,


how


' 'sound,
what


, and


nice


' 'aggre


largely


how


well


'package


SSive,


family


whether


he knows


on how
he gets


' he


well


a person


his


whether


' 'reliable


background


right


what


clubs


people"


69-70).
demand


Regard


ess


. -a person


of occupation,


is not


one


concerned


mus
wit


t always


h


life


and


cess


.*







impressions


marketed


or presented


the


consuming


public.


the


1960s


, E.


. Jones


see


example


, Jones,


1964)


was


undertaking


a series


of studi


ingratiation


behavior


from


the


impression


management


perspective;


1980,


the


field


had


so progressed


that


Schlenker


public


shed


Impression


ManaQement,


zens


of scholars


were


conducting


research


that


continues


today


on many


different


aspects


paradigm.


The


next


sections


review


some


the


contemporary


research


impression


management


Impression


Management


Conceptualized


Leary


Kowalski


(1990)


conceptualize


impression


management


called


in a two


impression


-component


motivation,


model


the


The

degre


first


to w


component,

which actors


are


motivated


to control


how


others


see


them


, and


invol


ves


goal


the


-relevance


discrepancy


impressions


between


desired


, value


of desired


current


goals


images


, and


The


second


component


, labeled


Impression


construction


, consis


five


factors


that


appear


to determine


the


kinds


impressions


that


actors


to construct


, including


self-


concept


des


ired


and


undesired


identity


images


constraints


, target


s values


, and


current


or potential


social


image


The


impre


ssion


management


paradigm


accounts


such


concepts


as the


association


principle,


which


suggests


that







avoid


wish


minimize


association


with


undesirable


ones


Schlenker


, 1980)


Impression


management


also


may


viewed


as a power


-augmenting


strategy


, which


may


be pursued


means


ingratiation


undertaken


to achi


eve


affection


augment


likability


(Jones


Pittman,


1982


Other


power-


augmenting


impress


ion


management


strategies


include


intimidation


to generate


ear


, self-promotion


instill


respect,


to stimulate

management


exemplification


nurturance


is thought


to eli


(Jones

some


guilt


Pittman


theorists


, and


supplication


, 1982).


to be


omnipr


pression

esent in


ability


to account


human


behavior.


However,


interpersonal


behavior


invol


ves


power


-augmenting


impression


management


Exceptions


may


include


behaviors


under


conditions


of high


-task


involvement


, pure


expre


sslon


anger


, joy)


ritualized


interactions


occasions


calling


authentic


self


-portrayal


such


as therapeutic


sessions


(Jones


Desian


Pittman


Model


, 1982).


Study


While


much


impr


ess


management


research


focused

Schlenke


on goals


and


behaviors


Leary


(1982


ression


investigated


managers


audience


reactions


to self


-pre


sentations


"redress


imbalance"


Interested


audience


perc


options


self-presenters


' self-


enhancing


accurate


self-deprecating


claims


scholars


conducted


a series


of experiments


involving


. 90)







evaluations


student


subjects


scenarios


depicting


actor


who


was


asked


about


or her


performance


in a


specific


task


The


Schlenker


Leary


(1982)


study


being


presented


in some


detail


here


not


only


because


the


findings


are


interesting


the


context


reviewing


knowledge


about


impress


management,


because


the


investigation


audience


reactions


impre


sslon


management


and


the


design


study


are


relevant


the


des


present


work.


the


first


experiment


, scenarios


described


an actor


either


participating


in a tennis


tournament


or taking


final


examination.


The


actor


s own


claims


before


or after


the


event


represented


expected


performance


or descriptions


actual


performances


, respectively.


The


actor


made


one


five


claims


expected


or actual


performance


ranging


from


very


well


very


poorly.


The


third


condition


involved


how


the


actor


actually


performed


very


well


, well


, average,


poorly


, very


poorly


or no


information


given.


Each


scenario


was


presented


in a separate


page


of a booklet


with


Likert-


type


questions


asking


subjects


give


overall


impressions


the


actor--very


favorable


very


unfavorable


tell


how


much


they


liked


actor


to estimate


how


good


student


or tennis


player


actor


actually


was,


and


to rate


how


modest


-braggartly


, sincere


-insincere,


and


truthful-


deceptive


actor


was.


Each


booklet


contained







Self-enhancement and accuracy were


found


to be


effective


impression management strategies


, but


under


different


conditions


Actors created


very


favorable


impressions of


competency


sincerity when


they


described


their performances


very


favorably


and audiences were


unaware of


their performances.


Audiences gave


actors


benefit


the doubt and


judged actors


to be


sincere


when


the


performance was unknown.


When audiences


knew how


actors


performed,


accurate actors were


particularly when


their


seen most


claims were


favorably,


post-performance.


Actors


were rated as most sincere when their


claims matched


their performances and


least sincere when


claims


that


departed


from actual


performances were made after,


instead


of before,


performance.


Prior to performance,


claims


average


performance


were


the


safest means of


creating


favorable


impressions.


they then did


favorably


well


, actors were evaluated almost as


as those who made more positive claims


, with


added benefits of


being


seen


as more modest,


equally


sincere


and


only


slightly


less competent.


actors


then


did


poorly,


they were as


favorably


evaluated as


those who made


more negative claims


, while being perceived


as more


competent,


equally


sincere,


only slightly


less modest.


When actors performed


poorly


, their public expectations


were


not significantly related


to how


favorably they were







effective


only


when


they


accurately


described


a prior


performance.


Actors


were


seen


as braggarts


when


they


performed


below


average


, but


claimed


superior


performances


The


factors


second


designed


third


to enhance


experiments


favorable


focused


on several


evaluations


of modest


actors.


Only


The


exam


methods


scenarios


were


were


similar


used


the


because


first


there


experiment.


were


differences


between


the


tenni


and


exam


stories


the


first


experiment.


In experiment


, information


about


the


actor


was


manipulated


with


slight


adjustments


there


were


three


manipulations


involving


actor:


how


well


he performed--


extremely


well,


well


, average,


and


no information;


how


well


the


actor


claimed


to have


performed--extremely


well,


well


right;


whether


actor


added


a di


sclaimer


about


the


importance


performing


after


making


claim--


adding,


s no big


deal


In experiment


, performance


was


held


constant


highest


level--extremely


well


and


three


factors


were


manipulated:


claim--extremely


well


right


; timing--before


or after


performance;


and


presence


or absence


actor


s disc


laimer.


Both


the


first


and


second


experiments


employed


within-subj ects


designs;


the


third


used


a between


-subjects


design,


so subjects


each


received


only


one


eight


possible


scenarios


Contrary


researchers


' expectations


the


disclaimer


made


evaluations


less


favorable.


In experiment







matched performances.


Subjects apparently


interpreted


disclaimer


as a


sign


of snobbishness and


insincerity


instead


as a genuine attempt


to downplay the actor's


performance.


In both studies,


subjects


rated actors who did not


use


the


disclaimer


as more modest and


truthful


When superior


performance was downplayed


through claims of having


done


"only"


well


, then modesty was


viewed


favorably.


To summarize the results of


the three


studies:


overall


, the higher the claim


, the


less modest


the actor was


perceived;


actors were


seen as more modest when


claims


followed


and downplayed superior performance;


actors were


judged more


truthful


when


claims


and performances


matched;


actors were seen as deceptive


they


claimed


they


did


very


well


or well


their performance


fell


below the claim;


disclaimers


reduced ratings


truthfulness;


and


the


between-subjects experiment


replicated


the relevant


results


the within-subjects experiment


The Schlenker


and Leary


(1982)


study


design approach


investigating


audience evaluations of


fictitious


actors


constructing written scenarios,


in which actions of


the


actor


are manipulated


to measure


various


impression


management effects,


in a


between-subjects design will


adopted as


the methodological


model


present


work.


The next section reviews some shortcomings,


real


and


alleged,


impression management paradigm.








Criticisms


of Impression


Management


For


other


theorists,


impression


management,


like


public


relations,


seems


to suffer


from


others


' negative


impressions


Interestingly


, several


references


in the


impression


management


literature


devalue


impression


management


comparing


it to public


relations.


example


, the


preface


to Impression


Management


suggests


that


the


misconceptions


and


negative


connotations


impr


ess


management


seem


make


a more


appropriate


topic


"students


of public


relations


than


students


of social


psychology"


(Schlenker


1980


. v).


There


are


additional


criticisms


In examining


shortcomings


the


dramaturgical 1


perspective


of self-


presentation


theory,


Buss


Briggs


(1984)


identify


two


themes


people


are


always


onstage


"playing"


to a real


or imagined


audience


and


self


Images


guide


self-


pre


sentation.


Arguing


with


osture


that


nearly


social


behavior


impression


management


, they


suggest


another


"theme"


that


social


behavior


often


the


outcome


a compromise


between


external


demand


s--


such


conformity


, or self-presentation


to maintain


appearances--


and


personal


needs,


such


individuality


They


examine


their


new


theme


within


context


three


dimensions


the


criti


cism


that


paradigm


"too


broad,


I fl -- flu- -1- I 4- -


_


1 ICI


m


1~ ~ T


1







pretense,


formality


shyness.


In their review


the


literature,


Buss


and Briggs give what


they


call


"onstage


behavior"


a narrow


and rigid rule-governed


interpretation.


The authors'


prediction


that


pretense


is more


likely to


occur


in vocations


that


"are especially public"--when


they


presume appearance


takes


on more


importance


than reality--


particularly troubling


the context


this work.


They


describe


public vocations


as the condition


in which


"public


relations


comes


into


its own"


and,


in doing


reveal


limited,


negative approach


to self-presentation


(Buss


Briggs,


1984,


1313)


and public relations.


In reality,


such


conditions may not apply to public relations


the contrary,


those who define good


at all.


public relations


good


behavior,


counsel


that


the most


effective


way to


improve appearance


is to


improve behavior,


might agree


with


Buss


and Briggs


that deception


is difficult


to maintain


over


time,


especially


the bright glare


of media


exposure.


Hogan and Sloan


(1985)


counter that Buss


Briggs'


"notion"


that


politicians,


salespeople and,


presumably,


public


relations


practitioners,


are


"more deceitful


than


average


person"


no empirical


justification and


that


"statement as


it stands


is completely unfounded"


although Hogan and Sloan


offer


no empirical


evidence of


their


own


to support


their position.


Not Necessarily Deceptive


10),







not


imply


that


impression


management


is necessarily,


intrinsically


deceptive


(Jones


& Pittman,


1982


Schlenker


1980


, 1984;


Schlenker


Weigold,


1989)


Schlenker


(1991)


argues


that


because


impre


ssion


management


invol


ves


the


manipulation


information


that


raises


ethical


questions.


Viewed


pre


benignly,


senting


effectively


impr


an edited


key


session
work d


information


management
designed to
to others.


is like
convey
Just a


textbook


that


author


a reader


mus


t pick


gets


and
point


choose
t with


information
ut getting


overwhelmed


and


confused,


so must;


we all


pick


and


choose
cannot


to make
reveal


our


points


everything


in everyday


about


ours


life


We simply


elves


particular


audience;


it is


impossible


. We


mus


t edit


and


make
take


the
just
*


impression
impression
malignancy


information


as much


germane


social


as to create


management


that


skill


the


occasion.


to create


a misleading


can


consumes


truth


one


viewed
Viewed


the
Of
as a


It may
"right"
course.


nefariously,


is conniving,


Machiavellian,


deceitful;


comprises


techniques


used by


the


mos


self


-serving


and


doubt
good


cyni


impr


or bad


esmen


session


in our


management


midst
occurs


.there


and


can


is no


be used for


purposes.


Following


Schlenker


s example,


present


work


assumes


that


impression


management


oes


neces


sarily


involve


deception,


irrelevant


Th


also

e nex


sets aside

t section


question


briefly


review


of deception

s how


differences


among


individual


impression


management


are


measured.


Measuring


Individual


Differences


in Imore


ssion


Manacrement


One


measure


to investigate


individual


differences


tendency


impre


ssion


manage


or recognize


impr


session







monitors


are


individuals who


"monitor


control


the


images


of self


they project


to a


great


extent


. carefully


observe


their


own


performances and adjust


their


behavior to


convey the desired


image,


acting


like different


people


depending


on the


situation and


their


audience.


contrast,


self-monitors


"typically


express


what


they


really think and


feel"


(Snyder


, 1987,


4-5)


Interestingly,


high self-monitors


take a relatively


dim


view


those,


like


themselves,


who are willing to


mold


their


behavior to attain certain goals,


prefer those


unlike


themselves who resist such motivational


constraints.


the


other hand,


low self-monitors


like the


"agreeableness"


ingratiators


(Jones


& Baumeister


, 1976


, p.


670)


Factor


analyses


suggest


presence of


maj or


factors


in the self-monitoring


scale:


a public performing


factor


potency


correlating


strongly with


extraversion;


and a


exhibitionism,


weaker


social


other-directedness


factor


correlating positively with shyness


negatively


with self-esteem


(Briggs


Cheek


, 1988)


The


self-monitoring


concept and scale have been


critically


analyzed,


and several


problems


have


been


identified,


including


conceptual


empirical


inconsistencies,


correlations opposing those expected,


construct


validity problems regarding the


presence of


personal


orientation,


inconsistent


research reports







difficulties, Lennox

Self-Monitoring Scale


and W

that


olfe


(1984)


appears


have


promi


tested


sing


Als


a revised

o, Paulhus


(1991)


has


developed


a measure


of socially


desirable


responding,


called


Balanced


Inventory


of Desirabl


Responding


It consists


-scal


es':


one


measuring


impre


ssion


management,


or what


Paulhus


describes


"deliberate

gauging sel


self-pres


f-deceptive


entation


an audience"


positivity,


"the


; the


tendency


other


give


self


-reports


(Paulhus


199


that

1, p


are

. 37)


honest

SThe


positively


present


research


bias


will


include


the


BIDR


impression


management


-scale


and


a self-


monitoring


measure


future


analysis.


Pro


-Social


Behavior


Appearance


Intentionality


Hogan


Jones


(1984)


quote


Malcolm


as having


remarked,


"Doing


good


a hustle


, too"


28)


Hogan


and


Jones


were


referring


the


application


of self-


presentational


analyst


to "conventionally


approved,


even


exalted"


social


identities


or personalities


such


as Albert


Schweitzer


Mother


Theresa.


Tedeschi


and


Riordan


(1981)


that


pros


social


behavior


"consists


actions


that


provide


benefits


to another


person


do not


appear


(emphasis

to obtain


added) to

immediate


be motivated


reinforcements


the

for


benefactor


himself"


s desire


. 224


"Attributed"


intentionality


or purposiveness


a key


factor


when


considering


communication


messages


(Bowers







generated


intentionally


are


rhetorical


messages


and


important


part


message


value


may


the


"attribution


nonattribution


1989,


14) .


be capable


intention


Participants


of distinguishing


the


interpreter"


in communication


between


are


behaviors


(Bowers,


thought


perceived


high


intentionality


or purposivene


ss.


While


strategic


the


or persua


"paradigm


sive


case"


communication


high


might


intentional


be considered


condition,


intentional


behaviors


may


seen


as b


eing


accidental,


nondirectional,


or thoughtless


(Bradac


, Hopper


Wiemann,


1989


. 297)


Denying


that


intentional


behavior


can


made


a skilled


actor


appear


unintentional


"excludes


from


theory


a set


of phenomena"


that


exists


in the


real


world


(Bowers


, 1989


, p.


14) .


The


effects


intentionality


or purposiveness


seem


worthy


of further


testing


from


the


perspectives


impression


management


as well


as public


relations.


Lookinsc


Autonomous


versus


Beinq


Autonomous


One


experiment


helps


show


that


wanting


a particular


appearance


management


can


become


motive


such


that


an important


can


alter


impres


behavior.


sion


The


experiment


, conducted


Schlenker


and


Weigold


(1990


demonstrated


that


people


may


alter


their


behaviors


order


to present


desired


self-


identities


to audiences.


Schlenker







and


Weigold


investigated


why


privately


self


-conscious


people


display


indepence


social


settings.


Private


self-


consciousness


is characterized


appearances


non-


conformity,


which


the


person


exemplifies


thine


own


self


true"


posture.


It contrasts


with


public


self-


consciousness


character


the


kind


person


who


always


conforms


to please


audience,


the


epitome


the


social


animal


or the


ultimate


ingratiator.


their


experiment


, the


researchers


identified


subj ects


high


and


in private


self


-consciousness


, had


them


fill


out


opinion


statements


, then


randomly


ass


signed


them


to a manipulation


which


they


were


either


told


that


their


opinions


made


them


appear


to another


to be autonomous


(trend-setters


or conforming


(pulse


-takers)


SSubjects


opinions


were


then


measured


again


to check


any


changes


Those


who


were


highly


privately


self-conscious


, but


told


they


appeared


conforming


, changed


their


reported


attitudes


so that


they


appeared


autonomous


, even


they


had


to act


ways


opposite


to autonomy


gain


the


desired


self-presented


appearance.


The


authors


concluded


that


, for


some


people


appearing


autonomous


is as important


or more


important


than,


being


autonomous.


Lookinsc


Fair


More


Important


than


Beinsc


Fair


Examining


justice


behaviors


in organizational


settings


from


an impre


ssion


management


perspective,


Greenberg


(1990)







cites


own


1988


survey


manager


as evidence


that


fairness


an identity


desired


organi


zations


as well


individuals.


1988


study


, participants


were


asked


que


stions


about


how


concerned


they


were


about


actually


being


fair


on the job


other


questions


about


how


concerned


they


were


with


appearing


fair


The


managers


expressed


greater


concern


about


appearing


to be fair


, and


two


sets


questions


were


significantly


corre


, suggesting


that


managers


differentiate


ed between


"looking


fair"


and


"being


fair


Gree


nberg


(1990


notes


that


some


might


take


exception


calculated


impre


sslons


motivated


unethi


interests


(like


the


slick


con


of a snake


salesman)"


But


cautions


that


intentional


acts


done


ear


fair


are


no more


present


ess


other


deceitful


aspect


than


one


entional


s identity


acts


Gree


nberg


admits


irony


that


"one


would


manipulatively


name


fairness


" then


states


"there


nothing


inherently


Machiavellian


about


wanting


appear


fair"


However


, Greenberg


cautions


, "it


is hoped


that


the


field


organize


national


behavior


will


expand


views


organic


national


justice


re-direct


least


some


efforts


away


from


'being


fair


' and


toward


'looking


fair


Appearances


and


Intentions


. 64)







intentionality


will


be perceived


as deliberately


planned


manipulations


that


outweigh


the


benefits


the


pro-


sociability,


leaving


a negative


impression.


the


conscience


the


organic


zation


it represents


, public


relations


often


undertakes


prosocial


behavior


then


promotes


the


good


deeds


to facilitate


good


relations


with


audience


or publics.


The


present


research


will


examine


how


the

such


appearance


as promoting


of good


intentionality


recycling


to help


in public


preserve


relations,


the


environment,


interacts


with


other


factors


--such


as selfish


prosocial


or altrui


stic


motives


affecting


source


credibility,


communications


strategy,


profe


onalism--


and


may


affect


audiences


' positive


or negative


perceptions


of public


relations


in general


practitioners


and


their


sponsors.


Impression


Management


and


Organizations


Although


much


impression


management


research


has


focused


on interpersonal


relations,


perspective


applies


equally


well


to organi


national


communication.


Within


organize


national


setting,


self-presentation


may


take


forms


self-promotion


such


as dressing


-for


-SUCCess,


intimidation,


and


exemplification,


as well


as self-protection


behaviors,


such


as self-handicapping


excuses


, justifications


, and


sclaimers


(Arkin


Reviewing


Shepperd,


literature


1989)


on impression


management







and


Martinko


(1988)


suggest


five


reasons


why


a conceptual


review


impression


management


may


be useful


management


These


include


that


impres


sion


management


may


related


success


within


organizations


may


aid


generating


support


leaders


' actions


, (3)


may


constitute


influential


element


in a manager


s behavioral


repertoire,


may


aid


recognition


the practical


implic


nations


management


behavior


, and


may


contribute


increased


under


standing


of organi


national


behavior


a soc


cont


ext.


Links


between


Impression


Management


and


Publi


Relations


The


impres


sion


management


per


spective


seems


particularly


well


suited


enhancing


understanding


advocacy


in public


relations


since


both


largely


involve


strategic


control


information


to communicate


particular


, desired


image


of self


or organization


identified

relations


audiences


, operates


. Impression

in a context


management,


interdep


like


endence


public

with


costs


rewards


that


must


be negotiated


, and


SOC


interactions


that


shape


self


-identiti


that


help


mediate


the


negotiations


costs


rewards


these


senses


public


relations


impre


sslon


management


and


public


relations


is equivalent


to advocacy


, then


advocacy


equivalent


impr


session


management.


while


basi


assumption


this


dissertation


that


public


relations







true


impression


managers


are


necessarily


practicing


public


relations;


they


lack


profess


ional


requirements


and


are


not


compensated


their


activities.


In recent


focused


years,


research


on metatheoretical


issues.


public


relations


Theories


have


has

been


borrowed


to direct


public


relations


from


the


perspecti


ves


related


sciplines,


such


as management


and


marketing;


communication


, including


rhetoric


and


persuasion


, and


mass


communication;


political


science;


sociology


and


social


psychology

frameworks

theories.


process


on public


of public


relations

relations


imposing

several


have


these

models


emerged


theoretical


not


(Hazelton


Botan


, 1989).


Despite


the


activity


appears


that


very


little


research,


any


, has


yet


linked


public


relations


with


impression


Sutton


management


, 1992)


A recent


impression


review


management


(Ginzel


strategies


Kramer


employed


leaders


public


cites


relations


several


textbooks,


assic


such


case


as the


histories


Exxon


used


Valdez


spill,


the


NASA


Challenger


explo


sion,


and


Pan


Am's Lockerbee


tragedy


, but


there


is not


a single


reference


term


"public


relations


Avenarius


(1993)


notes


that


organize


nations


individuals


control


how


they


appear


others


adds


"You


may


call


impression


management"


and


cites


Giacalone


Rosenfeld


(1989)







management


' tactics


legitimize


controversial


actions"


("Impression


Management,


" 1993)


which


reviewed


an article


Elsbach


and


Sutton


(1992)


published


Academy


Management


Journal


as evidence


"the


growing


recognition


of public


relations


communications


schools


management"


The


newsletter


accurately


reported


that


the


research


article


investigated


techniques


used by


two


radical


Soc


movement


organizations


--Earth


First!


and


AIDS


Coalition


to Unleash


Power


(ACT


UP) --in


efforts


to gain


media


coverage


public


support


their


unpopular


illegitimate


actions


newsletter


excerpt


accurate

relevant


reported


to public


the


researchers


relations


that


' proposition


when


most


illegitimate


actions


are


endor


credible


personnel


who


are


experts


their


elds


, that


actions


become


acceptable.


However


researchers


, the


(Elsbach


newsletter


& Sutton,


did


report


1992


termed


what


their


the


"rather


unsavory"


conclu


sion


that


those


seeking


to persuade


eers


like


goals


them


using


offending


to legitimize


a strategy


peers


them


of first


733)


Even


might


violating


more


accomplish


norms


relevant


their


and


thi


work


the


newsletter


explain


how


tactics


the


groups


The


illicit


actions


were


character


Earth


s tree-spiking


, which


resulted


in a


lumber


worker


_ _







used


were


related


impr


session


management,


although


the


newsletter


used


term


in the


headline.


The


published


research


article


(Elsbach


& Sutton,


1992)


quotes


Schlenker


(1980)


and


Tedeschi


and


Reiss


(1981)


suggests


that


Earth


Firs


and


ACT


UP used


two


specific


impression


management


justifications


their


tactics--defenses


strategic


innocence


actions


and


704)


Although


the


researchers


noted


that


both


groups


are


organic


zed enough


to have


national


newsl


letters


their


own,


and


make


money


selling


t-shirts


, bumper


sticker


and


buttons


researchers


got


their


information


about


the


groups


interviewing


member


"informants


There


are


references


in the


original


published


res


earch


professional


public


relations


or practitioner


representatives


either


group.


While


the


organi


zations


profiled


in the


case


used


some


traditional


public


relations


techniques


. attracting


media


coverage)


, it


difficult


to class


sify


as a public


relations


case


study


since


prof


ess


ionals


were


involved


Still


, the


prospect


of examining


public


relations


from


impr


Public


session ma

relations


impression


nagement


perspective


is concerned


management.


with


Pearson


seems


strategy


(1990)


promising.


a concern


describes


strategy


one


the


"two


faces"9


of systems


theory


in public


relations.


some


, the


term


strateq i


itself


has


negative







Strategic


can


also


mean


planning


ahead,


rather


than


manipulation


control.


To other


strategic


means


ways


that


will


enhance


goal


achievement,


which


seems


most


appropriate


impression


management


perspective,


and


part


conceptualization


adopted


this


work


both


impression

defines st


management


rategic


and a

in the


advocacy.


"interest


. Grunig


(1992a)


organization


change


(its)


behavior


when


(it)


provokes


opposition


from


the


environment


as well


as to


to change


the


behavior


environmental


stakeholders"


123)


One


might


ask


organization


environmental


purpo


goal


sefully


alters


involving


behavior


publics,


to achieve


this


not


impression


management?


Forging


another


link


between


public


relations


and


impression


management


, Culbertson


(1989)


quotes


Goffman


cast


a new


light


on Boorstin


(1971)


warning


the


dangers


of perceived


exaggeration


, insincerity,


cynicism


when


erest


groups


impress


construct


others


pseudo-events


Arguing


from


Goffman


gain


public


(1959)


perspective


of playing


to audiences


win


approval


and


respect


, Culbertson


suggests


that


a pseudo-event,


such


the


unveiling


a new


car,


differs


only


the


degree


presenting


many


persons


or a few,


in kind,


from


people


s behavior


practitioners


on a date


assume


roles


or in a meeting.


to play


Surely,


to a variety


, if







true


that


Grunig


"worldview"


(1992c)


Grunig'


asymmetric


model


(1984


, 1989)


may


have


more


common


with


impression


management


paradigm


than


the


two-


way


symmetric


model.


The


asymmetric


mind


-set


described


as the


getting


"alluring


what


view"


an organize


that


action


public


wants


relations


without


way


changing


behavior


or without


compromising"


one


has


to do


"hire


a public


relations


person


who


will


make


you


look


'competent


effective


, worthy


of respect


--powerful,


even


you


are


not"


. Grunig


, 1992a,


. 39)


1989


. Grunig


concluded

impossible


that


practitioners


to practice


ethica


find

1 and


difficult


socially


not


responsible


public


relations


in an asymmetric


model


Miller


(1989)


argues


that


one-way,


persuasive


communication


a highly


effective


method


that


humans


use


to attempt


to exert


control


over


their


environments


More


recently


Botan


(1993)


seems


to share


the


Grunig


worldview


asse


rting


that


one-way


or monological


approaches


images


tend


to be unethical,


because


they


reduce


the


public


s opportunities


to make


informed


choi


ces


while


two-


way,


dialogical


communication


is more


ethical


enhances


the


"human


rights"


of all


partic


ipants


public


relationships


The


present


study


supports


Miller


view


that


persuasive


communication


impression


management


and


that


. 75)







present


study


also


contends


that


two-way


communication


may


also


involve


persuasion


impression


management.


The


next


chapter


presents


research


hypotheses


the


present


work.













CHAPTER


SYNTHESIS


AND


HYPOTHESES


Thi


study


will


attempt


answer


the


question:


What


do people


think


of public


relations


, its


practitioners


and


their


sponsors


primarily


concerned


with


three


issues


moti


ves


Impre


sslon


manage,


communication


strategy,


and


prof


ess


ionalism,


how


differences


in these


three


issues


or factors


affect


audience


evaluations


the


context


of public


relations.


Research


hypotheses


this


study


are


drawn


from


the


research


literatures


each


the


factors


that


have


been


reviewed


preceding


chapters


, and


are


presented


following


section.


Motives


to Impress


Manacre


The

impression


impression

n managers


management


covered


literature


their


suggests


audiences


that

to be


behaving


in overtly


, intentionally


self-presentational


way


are


ess


trusted


ess


liked


than


impr


session


managers


who


do not


appear


to be


intentionally


self-


presenting


(Jones


Pittman


, 1982)


Being


perceived


as doing


good


to win


favor


discounted

motivated b


as manipulative


self-interests


deceitful


, according


behavior


the


when

impression








achieve


a particular


goal,


observer


likely


view


the


actor


as self-interested


, manipulative


deceitful


and


to distrust


slike


actor


, even


when


the


actor


goals


are


beneficent


to society


(Tedeschi


Riordan,


1981)


In other


words,


"Doing


good


a hustle,


too"


(Hogan


and


Jones,


1984


, quoting


Malcolm


. 28)


Yet


the


motive


on self


techniques


-inter


to act


ests


, and


success


use


fully


, are


impression


universal


management


Schlenker


1980)


Other


research


lends


insight


regarding


effects


perceptions


of public


relations


advocates


' motives.


Aronoff


(1975)


others


found


that


, among


journalists,


practitioners


were


thought


-credibility


sources


because


they


are


seen


as highly


motivated


communicators


with


something


gain


from


acceptance


their


messages.


Such


communicators


are


seen


ess


fair


ess


honest


and


having


made


poorer


esentations


than


unmotivated


communicators


(Hovland


Mandel


1952


Among


audiences


journalists


, advocates


self-interests


cause


advocates


to be


seen


ess


than


truthful


(Ryan


Martinson


, 1991).


Likewi


, persuasion


research


suggests


that


the


ess


objective


a source


appears


, and


more


audience


suspects


a source


intends


to persuade


them,


then


the


ess


reputable


the


source


judged


to be


(McGuire


1969


Sour


ces


who


stand


to profit


from


receiver


s being








ess


opinion


change


(Hovland


, 1951;


Hovland


Mandel


, 1952)


this


experiment,


four


level


of motives


impr


session


manage


will


be examined


altruistic


, prosocial


or mixed


, selfish


and


no motive


given.


the


purposes


investigation,


general


altruism


hypothesized


to be


evaluated


more


favorably


than


unknown


motives;


selfish


and


mixed


motives


are


expected


to be evaluated


ess


favorably


than


unknown


motives.


HYvotheses


Reqardinq


Motives


of Practition


ers


/Sponsors


The


first


hypotheses


posit


main


effects


motive


impression


manage


on evaluations


practitioner


well


as the


corporate


sponsor


Specific


hypotheses


to be


tested


follow.


H-P1


Evaluations


of public


relations


sources


will


lower


when


selfish


impression


management


motives


are


known


than


when


these


motives


are


unknown.


Also


H-S1


Evaluations


of corporate


entities


will


lower


when


selfish


impression


management


motives


are


known


than


when


these


motives


are


unknown.


These


hypotheses


are


expected


because


when


observers


know


an actor


is managing


impr


sessions


achieve


selfish


goals


, the


actor


is viewed


negatively


(Jones


& Pittman


1982


Tedeschi


& Riordan


, 1981)


is presumed


- *1 -


1


L. __ -A- 1 --


I


1% -


--


L


J







that


evaluations of


actors


for whom motives


are


unknown will


be comparatively more


favorable,


that


the


theory will


apply to sponsors of


the actors as well.


H-P2:


Evaluations of


public relations


sources


will


lower when


prosocial


impression management motives


are known


than when these motives


are


unknown.


Also


, H-S2:


Evaluations of


corporate entities will


lower when


prosocial


impression management motives


are known


than when


these motives


are


unknown.


When audiences know


an actor


purposefully


impression managing,


even


with


goals


of benefit


to society,


actors will


be viewed as


self-interested,


disliked,


Again,


and not trusted

is presumed tha


(Tedeschi


& Riordan,


t evaluations


actor


1981).

s for whom


motives are


that


unknown will


theory will


be comparatively more


apply to sponsors


favorable,


the actors


well.


"Doing


good"


for mixed motives


is expected


to be


seen


"hustle.


H-P3


Evaluations of


public


relations sources


will


higher when altruistic


impression management motives


are


known


than when these motives are


unknown;


and H-S3:


Evaluations


of corporate entities will


be higher when


altruistic


impression management motives are known


than


when


these


motives are unknown.


self-interests,


actors and


the absence of


their


known


sponsors motivated


good"


for purely altruistic reasons are expected


to be







accrue


a halo


effect,


an aura


of respectability


antithetical


to being


perceived


"doing


a hustle.


Motives


, Communic


action


Style


, and


Professionalism


in Public


Relations


Following


the


discussion


the


previous


section,


general


altruistic


motives


are


hypothesized


to be evaluated


more


favorably


than


unknown


motives


, while


selfish


and


mixed


motives


are


expected


to be evaluated


ess


favorably


than


unknown


motives


Turning


communication


style-


next


factor


-two-way


under


symmetrical


investigation--


approaches


public


relations


are


thought


to enhance


reputation.


Some


res


earchers


claim


that


applications


symmetric


models


of public


relations


instead


asymmetric


models


may


counteract


some


negativity


surrounding


the


eld


(Botan


, 1993;


Grunig


& Hunt,


1984;


. Grunig


& L.


Grunig,


1989;


. Grunig


, 1987;


Repper


1992


Grunig


s models


identify


two


styles


of communication


one-way


communic


action,


or monologue;


and


two-way


communication,


dialogue


. Grunig


. Grunig


, 1990).


Several


definitions


of public


relations


and


several


scholars

condition


in the


field


consider


practice


two-way


(Kendall


communication


Baxter


Pessolano


1988;


Ehling,


1984


, 1985


Others


believe


that


one-way


communication


, rooted


rhetorical


model


, can


anir 1 1?


int70v -. a1rit iI7


infori nr


two-


za-fPa/-t+ ^ -ir


I L


|| ii


rl rl


|i







In this


study,


levels of


communication style,


strategy,


will


be examined--monologue and dialogue in


conjunction with


four


levels of


motive


levels


professionalism,


which


is reviewed next.


Across professions


trends are


toward state


licensing


of occupations


in a bid


to accrue the benefits


of enhanced


reputation


(Hogan


, 1983b).


Many


have


vigorously


opposed


licensing


in public relations,


including the


Public


Relations


Society


America


International


Association


of Business Communicators,


licensing would retard


competition,


on the grounds


be costly


that


and


ineffective,


and


invite


unwelcome government


regulation


(Baxter,


1986;


Lesly,


1986;


"What Public


Relations,


" 1993).


A prominent and


vocal


cadre of


professionals


and


academics


led by


Bernays


supports


licensing


believes


that such an


imprimatur


public


relations


would


provide


luster to


public perceptions of


trustworthiness,


credibility and


practitioners' ethics,

professionalism (Bernays,


1992,


1993;


Forbes,


1986).


this


study,


two


levels of


professionalism will


be examined--licensed practitioners


versus


not-licensed practitioners--in


conjunction with


the


four


levels of motive and


levels


of communication


style


discussed previously.


Hypotheses


Regarding Motives,


Communication


Style,


Professionalism


The


following


six hvnotheses


D


redic


interactions amona


s








practitioner,


general


the


Overall


corporate


, it


sponsor,


is expected


and


that


public


public


relations


relations,


practitioners


sponsors,


will


win


better


reputations


when


licensed p

altruistic


when


selfish


practitioners

or unknown


unlicensed


engage

motives,


practitioners


or prosocial


in two

and w

use on


"mixed" )


-way

ill


e-wav


motives


communication


ess


respected


communication


Following


are


specific


hypotheses


to be


tested


regarding


how


the


fact


that


practitioners


are


licensed


or not


interacts


with


monologue


or dialogue


communication


strategic


moti


ves


impre


ssion


manage


in public


relations.


H-P4


Evaluations


licensed


public


relations


sources


will


be higher


when


altruistic


motives


are


known


and


the


practitioner


engages


in dialogue


communication


strategies


than


evaluations


of unlicensed


public


relations


sources


when


selfish


motives


are


known


and


practitioner


engages


monologue


communication


strategies.


H-P5


Evaluations


censed


public


relations


sources


will


be higher


when


motives


are


unknown


and


the


practitioner


engages


dialogue


communication


strategies


than


evaluations


of unlicensed


public


relations


sources


when


prosocial


motives


are


known


practitioner


engages


monologue


communication


strategies


These


hypotheses


stem


from


belief


that


licensing


of practitioners


would


enhance


their


reputations


(Bernays,


1992


, 1993;


Forbes








Repper


, 1992)


altruistic


or unknown


motives


(Jones


Pittman,


1982


Tedeschi


Riordan,


1982


while


poorer


evaluations


are


expected


to result


from


use


one-way


communication


styles


unlicensed


practitioners


selfish


or prosocial


motives.


Similarly,


expected


that


H-S4


Evaluations


corporate


entities


will


lower


when


selfish


motives


are


known


and


the


unlicensed


practitioner


engages


in monologue


communication


strategies


, than


when


corporate


entities


altruistic


motives


are


known


the


licensed


practitioner


uses


dialogue


communication


strategies


, and


H-S5


Evaluations


of corporate


entities


will


lower


when


prosocial


moti


ves


are


known


unlicensed


practitioner


engages


in monologue


communication


style,


than


when


corporate


entities


' motives


are


unknown


the


licensed


practitioner


uses


dialogue


communication


style.


Also,


expected


that


H-PR1


Evaluations


of public


relations


general


will


be higher


when


censed


practitioners


engage


dialogue


than


communication


evaluations


strategies


of public


relations


altruistic

in general


motives,

when


unlicens


ed public


relations


sources


have


selfi


sh motives


the


practitioner


engages


in monologue


communication


strategies


H-PR2


Evaluations


of public


relations


general


will


be higher


when


motives


are


unknown


and


licensed


practitioners


engage


in dialogue


communication,


than







public


relations


sources


have


prosocial


motives


and


engage


monologue


communication.


These


predictions


are


derived


from


the


belief


that


public


relations


will


be viewed


as more


reputable


with


the


halo


effects


previously


discussed


thought


accrue


from


licensing,


altruism,


and


dialoguing,


compared


with


the


detrimental


unlicensed


effects


expected


practitioners


using


on reputation


monologue


from


styles


having


selfish


"mixed"


prosocial


motives.


The


next


chapter


scusses


methodology














CHAPTER


METHODOLOGY


Methodolocrv


An Overview


An experiment


effects


was


of different


planned


impression


conducted


management


test


motives,


communication


styles


or strategies


, and


profess


ionalism


practitioners


on audience


practitioners


evaluations


sponsors.


These


of public


effects


relations


were


hypothesis


chapter


presented


Detail


detail


experiment


previous


follow


Subiects


experiment


at hand


conducted


during


three


weeks


April


1993


, 585


subjects


participated.


Nearly


half


the


subjects


were


non


-student


adults,


the


majority


whom


were


engaged


through


interceptions


the


Oaks


Mall


Gainesville


, Florida,


on two


days


, April


and


April


The


non


-student


subjects


were


offered


a monetary


incentive


of $1


, which


they


could


keep


or donate


to a local


non-profit


organization


The


rest


subjects


= 294)


were


1T
returned


and


hirty-eight
during the


eavel uded


fronm


of a total
shopping n


analv


Si .


of 2


nall


Amona


questionnaires


interc
the 2


epts


91


were


complete


non-student


adult







undergraduate


students


in an introductory


speech


communication


course


University


of Florida


who


participated


credit.


on April


(Additional


Participants


demographic


were


information


awarded


about


extra


the


participants


is pre


sented


Chapter


To achieve


confidence


that


manipulated


conditions


are


exclusively


responsible


observed


differences


in an


experiment


the


various


groups


receiving


different


levels


independent


variable


must


be equivalent


prior


experimental


manipulation.


Random


ass


ignment


of subjects


experimental


groups


produces


equivalency


and


confidence,


and


is requis


internal


validity


and


selective


control


(Campbell


Stanley


, 1963;


Kennedy


& Bush,


1985)


experiment,


subjects


were


randomly


ass


signed


various


manipulated


conditions.


The


Experimental


Manipulations


Four


publishing


brief


news


system


article


res


emble


, prepared


authentic


with


a desktop


newspaper


articles


see


Appendix


A for


copies


of each


four


article


announced


plans


of a fictitious


manufacturer


laser


printers


to launch


laser


cartridge


recycling


program


the


local


community


The


recycling


program


was


based


part


on the


Harvard


Kennedy


School


of Government


case


Seattle


s mandatory


recycling


program


, which


has


become


prototype


similar


programs


around


the


nation


(Husock,