This article was downloaded by: [University of Sydney] On: 05 May 2013, At: 22:00 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Public Relations Research Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hprr20 Two Types of Public Relations Problems and Integrating Formative and Evaluative Research: A Review of Research Programs within the Behavioral, Strategic Management Paradigm Jeong-Nam Kim a & Lan Ni b a Brian Lamb School of Communication, Purdue University b Jack J. Venti School of Communication, University of Houston Published online: 10 Jan 2013. To cite this article: Jeong-Nam Kim & Lan Ni (2013): Two Types of Public Relations Problems and Integrating Formative and Evaluative Research: A Review of Research Programs within the Behavioral, Strategic Management Paradigm, Journal of Public Relations Research, 25:1, 1-29 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2012.723276 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Transcript
This article was downloaded by: [University of Sydney]On: 05 May 2013, At: 22:00Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Public Relations ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hprr20
Two Types of Public Relations Problemsand Integrating Formative and EvaluativeResearch: A Review of ResearchPrograms within the Behavioral,Strategic Management ParadigmJeong-Nam Kim a & Lan Ni ba Brian Lamb School of Communication, Purdue Universityb Jack J. Venti School of Communication, University of HoustonPublished online: 10 Jan 2013.
To cite this article: Jeong-Nam Kim & Lan Ni (2013): Two Types of Public Relations Problems andIntegrating Formative and Evaluative Research: A Review of Research Programs within the Behavioral,Strategic Management Paradigm, Journal of Public Relations Research, 25:1, 1-29
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2012.723276
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Two Types of Public Relations Problems andIntegrating Formative and Evaluative Research:
A Review of Research Programs within theBehavioral, Strategic Management Paradigm
Jeong-Nam Kim
Brian Lamb School of Communication, Purdue University
Lan Ni
Jack J. Venti School of Communication, University of Houston
Through a review of related research programs within the behavioral, strategic management
paradigm in public relations, this article integrates the use of formative and evaluative research in
two types of public relations problems. Aiming to propose a theory-driven guiding procedure for
public relations practice, this article first defines 2 different kinds of public relations problems
and proposes new ways of using existing theories (situational theory and relational theory) for both
formative research (focusing on identification of publics) and evaluative research (i.e., assessment of
public relations effectiveness using the most appropriate metrics).
Through a review of related research programs within the behavioral, strategic management
paradigm in public relations (J. E. Grunig, Ferrari, & Franca, 2009), this article aims to integrate
the use of formative and evaluative research in two types of public relations problems. Acknowl-
edging the existence of other schools of thought among public relations researchers, this article
offers a review and, more important, a synthesis of research in the strategic management
paradigm in public relations, delimited to the situational and relational theory. This article aims
to advance current theories by integrating these theories in an innovative way and proposing a
theory-driven guiding procedure for public relations practice.
As public relations becomes the fastest-growing field, as an academic discipline and as an indus-
try (Botan & Hazleton, 2006; Botan & Taylor, 2004), it has witnessed rapid growth in both academic
and practical research. Among the many schools of thoughts in public relations, the behavioral,
strategic management paradigm (a general theory of public relations, J. E. Grunig et al., 2009;
L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002; Kim & Ni, 2010) consists of several middle-range
theories that are being continually improved and refined (see J. E. Grunig, 2006, p. 151, for a detailed
review of this continuous development to ‘‘furnish the edifice’’ of a general theoretical paradigm).
This article centers on this paradigm and aims to explore answers to three specific questions
to advance theory development, as well as to build a procedure for theory application among
Correspondence should be sent to Jeong-Nam Kim, Purdue University, Brian Lamb School of Communication, 2114
Beering Hall, 100 N. University Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2098. E-mail: [email protected].
Journal of Public Relations Research, 25: 1–29, 2013
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1062-726X print/1532-754X online
DOI: 10.1080/1062726X.2012.723276
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
practitioners. These questions are: (a) how to diagnose and classify the types of public relations
problems, (b) how to choose segmentation theories that are relevant to the given problems, and
(c) how to choose communication theories and variables that offer the most appropriate nonfinan-
cial metrics for assessing the success of strategies and tactics chosen for the given problem-solving
context. It should be noted that there are other steps in the actual public relations practice, such as
diagnosis of external and internal factors of an organization, selection of messages, and media stra-
tegies. This article addresses the three questions listed because these questions are central to theory
building in public relations in general, appear to be more critical to the success of any public rela-
tions program, and may serve as a starting point to be augmented in the future.1 Any one of these
questions deserves an extensive discussion; however, they are covered in this single article so that
an integrated framework can be provided. A synthesis of the answers to the three questions is then
provided and serves as the overall theory-driven guiding procedure for public relations programs.
TYPES OF PUBLIC RELATIONS PROBLEMS: PUBLIC’S PROBLEMRECOGNITION VERSUS ORGANIZATION’S PROBLEM RECOGNITION
Many practitioners and scholars have recognized that not all PR activities are the same. This article
proposes two common PR situations that require different PR interventions and different methods
for evaluating these interventions. Public-initiated PR (PPR) problems often arise because publics
have sensed a problem in organizational decisions or actions. These problems are usually contro-
versial and are policy or issue related, typically involving conflicting situations between the organi-
zation and publics. These problems thus typically start at the public stage in strategic management of
public relations (J. E. Grunig & Repper, 1992). On the other hand, organization-initiated PR (OPR)problems often start because an organization has sensed potential problems affecting publics’ or the
organization’s own interests. These problems are usually related to nonconflicting situations. They
include the more routine PR activities such as public information campaigns for creating awareness
about these problems among target segments in a population. OPR problems typically start by
considering the state of relations and quality of relationships between an organization and publics
(J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig, 2001) because those publics with good relationships, or any relation at
all, with the organization are more likely to respond to communication about the problem.
Figure 1 illustrates the starting points of public relations efforts in the two types of PR
problems. The interior flow chart in the figure summarizes the strategic management process
of public relations taken from the Excellence study (for a detailed explanation about the interior
part see L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002).2 Figure 1 extends that flow chart by
1The focus of this theory article is on the behavioral, strategic management paradigm in public relations; other
paradigms may produce different answers to the three questions posed here. In addition, the theories chosen in this article
represent the core, but not the exclusive, theoretical framework for answering the three questions.2It should be noted that this new typology is different from the traditional classification of reactive versus proactive
public relations programs. PPR problems can be solved both reactively and proactively, and the same is true with OPR
problems. For example, PPR problems can be addressed both reactively (if an organization fails to acknowledge the con-
cerns of already active publics and waits until a crisis has occurred) and proactively (if an organization engages in
environmental scanning early on to detect the publics’ concerns and thus faces less challenge in interacting with publics).
Similarly, OPR problems can be addressed both reactively (e.g., if an organization does not analyze a situation before-
hand and suddenly realizes that it has to engage in an extensive publicity=promotion campaign) and proactively (e.g., if
an organization predicts consumer trends and launches a publicity effort to appeal to those trends).
2 KIM AND NI
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
distinguishing the two types of problems. The top section addresses OPR problems and the
bottom section focuses on PPR problems. Highlighted sections in the figure present the four
major sections in our theorizing: (a) problem definitions, (b) goals of solving the problems,
(c) appropriate types of formative research (types of public segmentation), and (d) appropriate
types of evaluative research (types of outcomes in the public relations program). A detailed
explanation of each of the four sections in our theorizing is presented in the following, followed
by a synthesis of the theory-driven procedure.
PROBLEM DEFINITIONS AND GOALS OF TWO TYPESOF PUBLIC RELATIONS PROBLEMS
PPR Problems
PPR problems start with a public’s problem recognition. At times members of a stakeholder
group encounter problematic situations that affect them. In such situations members with
problem recognition will arise as an active public regarding the problematic state and may
FIGURE 1 A taxonomy of types of PR problems in the strategic management context. (Color figure available online)
FORMATIVE AND EVALUATIVE RESEARCH IN PUBLIC RELATIONS 3
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
initiate problem-solving efforts (Public stage, J. E. Grunig & Repper, 1992; Kim, Ni, & Sha,
2008). The most salient efforts of a public are their active information behaviors, and the major
goal of this type of problem is to ‘‘decreate’’ publics or downgrade the public types (e.g., from
more active to more passive).
The situational theory of publics (J. E. Grunig, 1997) and the new situational theory of
problem solving (Kim & J. E. Grunig, in press) suggest the following public types. Very briefly,
nonpublics are those who have no consequence on an organization and experience no conse-
quences from organizational behaviors. Organizational behavior can have consequences for
latent publics in that it creates a problem for them. However, these latent publics do not detect
the problem yet. Aware publics are those who recognize a problem created by an organizational
behavior. Active publics are those who start working on solving the problem=issue (the individ-
ual effectuating phase). Finally, activist publics are those who organize to discuss and do some-
thing about the problem (the collective effectuating phrase). See Figure 2 for an illustration of
the distribution of these different publics. For example, publics with high involvement, high
FIGURE 2 Goals in different public relations problems. (Color figure available online)
4 KIM AND NI
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
problem recognition, and low constraint recognition engage in high involvement and problem-
facing behaviors and are called active=activist publics.As the organization’s key stakeholder group evolves into an active public about some problem,
a public’s problem-solving action could create strategic threats that require managerial actions.
A frustrated public may, in conjunction with government, media, or other publics, create an issue
to pressure the organization; this, then, threatens organizational routines for goal achievement and
thus makes the organization ineffective. Thus, in PPR problems, organizations find the need for
PR intervention in communication programs to decrease stakeholders’ and public’s problem per-
ceptions, motivation, and actions. For example, the recent merger between United and Continen-
tal Airlines has caused much concern and discussion among employees (regarding fear of layoffs)
and traveler consumers (who fear higher fares). To address the concerns of employees and con-
sumers regarding the company’s transition, the organization could launch a communication pro-
gram that incorporates these publics’ concerns into the transition process and reduces harm to
these groups. In this case, the goal of the public relations program is to decreate a (possible) public
by reducing these publics’ problem perception, cognitive frame (i.e., modifying undesirable refer-
ent criterion), and information behaviors (e.g., writing e-mails to politicians). The arrow for PPR
in Figure 2 indicates such a direction of public relations efforts in changing public types.
In other words, PPR problems require the use of public relations programs and managerial interven-
tions that directly address the issues at hand, then change publics who may be active and angry about
the issues into publics who are satisfied with the solution of these problems. These publics would then
become less concerned about these issues and mentally disengage from the situation. The top of
Figure 2 illustrates the goal and process of shifting activist=active=aware publics to a nonpublic status.
OPR Problems
OPR problems start from an organization’s problem recognition. At times, organizations encoun-
ter problems that prevent the accomplishment of their mission. For example, the Indiana state
health department has a key mission of promoting health for its state residents. When the depart-
ment finds Indiana’s farmers are exposed to a greater risk of skin cancer, it perceives this as prob-
lematic and senses the need for intervention communication programs, such as Melanoma=Skin Cancer Detection & Prevention Month. For another example, many universities in the
United States are now facing the organizational problem of a budgetary deficit. To secure the
required budget, they may lobby the government for more budget support or initiate more aggress-
ive fundraising. In such situations, organizations make similar problem-solving efforts, just as
members of a public would do. They seek, select, and disperse information to justify and support
their proposed solution. In this vein, an organization will plan and initiate communication programs
such as campaigns for preventing risky behaviors or for requesting resources.
In OPR problems, organizations find the need for PR intervention to increase problem
perception, to introduce a new cognitive frame, and to foster (information) behaviors among
stakeholders or subsegments of a general population. In this vein, organizations attempt to createa public about the problem that the organization experiences as important. In other words, for
OPR problems, non-=latent publics are to be changed into active=aware publics. Although such
a change is usually challenging, public relations practitioners sometimes have to strive to
accomplish it because of normative or ethical reasons, e.g., to raise awareness of skin cancer
problems in health campaigns by the state health department.
FORMATIVE AND EVALUATIVE RESEARCH IN PUBLIC RELATIONS 5
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
The arrow for OPR in Figure 2 indicates such a direction of public relations efforts to change
public types. Notably, because a public is, by definition, a group of individuals who recognize a
problem and act similarly to solve the problem, creating a public can be very difficult if not imposs-
ible (J. E. Grunig, 1997). Therefore, organizations typically start their programming by identifying
subsegments that have relations (who among its stakeholders will be affected) and=or
that have high-quality relationships with the organization (who will be likely to share resources;
relationship outcome J. E. Grunig & Repper, 1992). In the previous examples, the state health depart-
ment identified its relations with taxpayers so the department anticipated and recognized farmers’
health risks as its own problem; the university recognized the financial deficit as a problem that
deterred the accomplishment of its mission and tried to utilize its relationships with alumni.
TYPES OF SEGMENTATION (FORMATIVE RESEARCH) IN TWO TYPES OFPROBLEMS: SITUATIONAL THEORY VERSUS RELATIONAL THEORY
After PR practitioners diagnose the type of public relations problem and causes of the problem
(detect stage in the behavioral molecule; J. E. Grunig, 2003), they enter the solution-building
stages (construct–define–select stages; J. E. Grunig, 2003). Constructing solutions requires seg-
mentation of an organization’s environment and problem-solving contexts—identifying the criti-
cal segments in an organization’s environment that are affected by the problem and that can
facilitate or prevent the problem-solving process (Kim et al., 2008). This step involves the
key components in Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats (SWOT) analysis for
the strategic management of public relations:3 checking and matching an organization’s profiles
(strength and weakness) and its environmental profiles (opportunities and threats). Based on this
analytic process, practitioners can set priorities among identified strategic publics and select rel-
evant goals and strategies for a given problem. This then leads to appropriate objectives and tac-
tics in the evaluation stage, to be discussed later. In this process, different theoretical frames are
chosen to assess the environment and to analyze problem-solving contexts.
Theoretical Basis for Segmentation
This study aims to offer a theory-driven model for the procedure of both planning and evaluating
public relations interventions using nonfinancial metrics. To do this, innovative ways of using
existing theories in practice are provided by utilizing new combinations of segmentation and
evaluation methods. Two core public relations theories are chosen in this article: situational
theory (public) and relational theory (relations), which have been theoretically tested and practi-
cally used in formative and evaluative research (Aldoory & Sha, 2007; Jo, 2006; Ki & Hon,
2007). Traditionally, the situational theory of publics (J. E. Grunig, 1997, 2005) is used primarily
3We acknowledge that SWOT includes other components that are not closely related to publics or stakeholders, such
as the economic situation. We also recognize that segmentation of publics is one major part, but not the only part, of
formative research. Other elements in formative research can include using qualitative and quantitative research to ident-
ify the perspectives of publics, as well as using coorientation techniques to conduct formative research with the dominant
coalition as a target publics.
6 KIM AND NI
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
in the planning stage (to identify publics) and relational theory primarily in the evaluation stage of
public relations (J. E. Grunig & L. A. Grunig, 2001).4
Situational theory helps practitioners define and identify strategic segments in the organiza-
tional environment. It assumes that members of a population communicate and behave differ-
ently across problems. Practitioners can, therefore, assess the publics’ perceptions about the
problem situation and distinguish those segments more likely to be active in communication
behavior (active or activist public) from others (aware, latent, or nonpublic). Knowing these
active segments will economize the public relations process; practitioners do not even need to
reach out to the active=activist publics. These publics will, themselves, approach organizations
for more information and will facilitate the problem-solving process if organizations later nego-
tiate these publics’ interest into problem-causing decisions.
In contrast, the relational theory helps practitioners evaluate the effectiveness of public rela-
tions. Different from various communication objectives (e.g., improving knowledge and forming
a favorable attitude) that are more specific and short-term indicators of program effectiveness,
relationship quality is a long-term indicator that shows the cumulative effects of public relations
programs. Organization–public relationships result from each entity’s past experiences and present
interactions with the other (Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999). The quality of relationships becomes a criti-
cal nonfinancial metric as to whether publics will support or oppose an organization’s goal-pursuit
process and thus influences the organization’s effectiveness (L. A. Grunig et al., 2002).
Although the two theories discussed earlier have earned respect in research and practice, their
utility and power have not yet been fully demonstrated. Specifically, little research has used
both situational theory and theory of relationships as ambidextrous conceptual tools for both
formative and evaluative research.
Situational theory. Situational theory is constantly evolving from the original theory of
decision making and information behavior when people encounter problematic life situations
(J. E. Grunig, 1966, 1968). It later became a theory of publics that highlighted what a public
is, how it behaves, and in what process members of a public arise situationally (J. E. Grunig,
1997, 2003). Because no good theory stagnates, Kim and J. E. Grunig (in press) have recently
made another evolutionary theorizing effort by generalizing the situational theory of publics
(theory of publics) into a situational theory of problem solving (theory of problem solving).
Depending on the situation, an organization or a public or both may engage in certain infor-
mation behaviors. The key dependent variables in situational theory explain these information
behaviors and include the following: information seeking (the planned scanning of the environ-
ment for messages about a specified topic) and information attending (unplanned discovery of a
message followed by continued processing of it); information forwarding (a planned, self-
propelled giving of information about the problem to others) and information sharing (reactive
information giving only when someone else requests one’s opinion, idea, or expertise about the
problem); and information forefending (the extent to which a problem solver fends off certaininformation in advance by judging its value and relevance for a given problem-solving task)
and information permitting (the extent to which a problem solver accepts any information related
4To our knowledge, the situational theory of publics is seldom used in the evaluation stage. Most public relations
textbooks to date introduce situational theory in the planning stage (e.g., Broom, 2009; J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984;
Wilson & Ogden, 2008). Organization–public relationship theory is sometimes used in formative research, but this is
rare and seldom documented in the current literature.
FORMATIVE AND EVALUATIVE RESEARCH IN PUBLIC RELATIONS 7
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
to a given problem-solving task). The former three variables (information seeking, forwarding,
and forefending) are more proactive or active, and the latter three (information attending, shar-
ing, and permitting) are more reactive or passive.
The current situational theory conceptualizes one’s situational perception, such as the discrep-
ancy from and perceived obstacles to achieving a desired state as a prime trigger for one’s
motivation in thinking about and acting on the problematic state. In addition, available and appli-
cable cognitive frames that one finds useful for the given situation will correlate with the direction-
ality and magnitudes of communicative action. Specifically, the independent variables are problemrecognition (problem recognition as one’s perception that something is missing and that there is no
immediately applicable solution), constraint recognition (perceived obstacles in a situation that
limit one’s ability to do anything about the problem), involvement recognition (a perceived connec-
tion between the self and the problem situation), and referent criterion (any knowledge or subjec-
tive judgmental system that influences the way in which one approaches problem solving). Finally,
situational motivation in problem solving (the extent of one’s willingness to stop other routine
efforts and to think about the given problematic situation) is a variable mediating the effect of prob-
lem recognition, constraint recognition, and involvement recognition on the dependent variables.
In the theory of problem solving, the original situational theory of publics is subsumed as a
special case. First, the new theory makes information behaviors more general by expanding from
information acquisition (information seeking and attending) alone to information transmission
(information forwarding and sharing) and information selection (information forefending and
permitting). These communicative behaviors are called communicative action in problem solv-ing. In addition, the theory refines three situation–perceptual variables (problem recognition,
constraint recognition, and involvement recognition) and reinstates referent criterion that was
previously dropped (Kim & J. E. Grunig, 2011).
After incorporating new variables of information giving and selection, the current situational
theory provides more detailed accounts, such as how a public behaves to become a strategic threat
and why organizational efforts are, at times, ineffective because of a public’s communicative
action. In addition, the theory offers more practical utilities, such as identification of
subsegments that are likely to be an engine for information circulation in social networks. Organi-
zation communicators can assign their communication resources accordingly to foster (lessen) the
(negative) word-of-mouth effect in a given problem situation.
Notably, the causal sequence specified in situational theory has an important practical impli-
cation. Although organizational communicators often want to influence the behavior of a public,
behaviors or even attitudinal or knowledge changes are very unlikely (J. E. Grunig, 1997; Kim,
Ni, Kim, & Kim, 2012; Kim, Shen, & Morgan, 2011). A more realistic alternative is to increase
perceptual variables (e.g., problem recognition), which is relatively easier than directly motivat-
ing people or changing (communicative) behaviors about a problem=issue. Situational theory
has found that the situation-related perception significantly influences problem-specific motiv-
ation and, to some weaker degree, communicative behaviors. Whereas such serial causal effects
from situational perception to motivation and, in turn, to communicative action will be diluted as
its links stretch to some desired behaviors, it can still incrementally enhance the potential of
achieving desired objectives. In other words, if organizations select more likely subsegments
(vs. the general population) and set more realistic communicative objectives such as increased
problem recognition about health risks among high-risk farmers or about the financial crisis
of one’s alma mater (cf. agenda setting), their communication effectiveness will be enhanced.
8 KIM AND NI
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
Relational theory. The relational theory originated from Ferguson’s (1984) call for more
research into relationships. The organization–public relationship assessment (OPRA) scale
and types of relationships are used to measure the relationships that organizations have with
publics. Four quality dimensions of organization–public relationships (J. E. Grunig & Huang,
2000) are the most widely adopted theoretical variables in academic and practical research
(Jo, 2006; Ki & Hon, 2007): trust, control mutuality, relational satisfaction, and relational com-
mitment. In general, trust means one’s confidence in the other party and the willingness to open
oneself to the other party. Control mutuality refers to the ‘‘degree to which partners agree about
which of them should decide relationship goals and behavioral routines’’ (Stafford & Canary,
1991, p. 224). Acknowledging the existence of power imbalance, each party can agree that either
one or both will influence the decision-making process. Relational satisfaction is the degree to
which both parties are satisfied with the relationship. From a social exchange perspective, a
satisfying relationship is one in which ‘‘the distribution of rewards is equitable and the relational
rewards outweigh cost’’ (Stafford & Canary, 1991, p. 225). Relational commitment refers to an
enduring desire to maintain a relationship because it is valued (Moorman, Zaltman, & Desh-
pande, 1992). Two major types of relationships are exchange and communal. Exchange relation-
ships are those in which two parties do things for each other because they have each done things
for the other in the past or will be expected to do something in the future. Communal relation-
ships, on the other hand, are those in which different parties do things for each other out of true
concern for the other’s well-being (Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999).
The four dimensions of relationship quality can be distinguished and evaluated in two ways.
In a typical evaluation procedure, relationship scale items are administered through various
sampling procedures. Notably, some participants would have had chances to interact with the
organization in the past and some would not. The former type of survey participants are those
who have behavioral or experiential relationships and whose assessment of their relationship
with the given organization stems from direct interactions; the latter are those who have a
reputational relationship and whose assessment of their relationship is indirect, through media
exposure or witnessing from people with behavioral relationships (J. E. Grunig & Hung, 2002;
Kim, Bach, & Clelland, 2007). Thus, as we obtain the information on survey participants, the
links, and the sources of knowledge about the organization, we can simultaneously evaluate both
reputational and behavioral relationship qualities.
Typologies of publics based on situational theory and relational theory. Segmentation
of organizational environment is one necessary condition for strategic communication. It helps
communicators break down an organization’s institutional and economic environment into finer
elements in terms of power, resources, or action potential (Kim et al., 2008). Practitioners
develop different communication strategies and allocate different amounts of resources in
matching with differential priorities (J. E. Grunig & Repper, 1992).
Using situational theory, J. E. Grunig (1997, 2003) and Kim and J. E. Grunig (in press)
distinguished publics within a problem as nonpublic, latent, aware, active, and activist publicsbased on the extent of proactiveness about the given problem-solving situation (Figure 2) (see
Kim (2011) for a detailed review of segmentation method). In general, active publics are important
to organizations because their behaviors can have consequences to the organization. They may take
action individually or form activist groups; they may take negative actions (in response to harmful
consequences of an organization’s behavior), positive actions (trying to secure an organizational
FORMATIVE AND EVALUATIVE RESEARCH IN PUBLIC RELATIONS 9
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
behavior that is beneficial for them), or even work together with the organization to secure actions
that are beneficial to both (J. E. Grunig, 2005). These subsegments within a problem or issue have
frequently been applied in formative research in public relations.
In PPR problems, the purpose is typically to change activist=active and aware publics into
latent or nonpublics. Usually such downgrading can only be done one level at a time. For
example, often an active public cannot be changed to a latent public immediately, but will first
need to become an aware public, i.e., the contention with the organization is no longer as intense
after a public relations intervention. If the organization has done a good job with negotiation and
conflict resolution, angry and active publics could be satisfied and decide to leave the situation
mentally (i.e., become a nonpublic regarding that particular issue).
The same pattern of gradual change applies to OPR problems, as well. A latent public will
become an aware public if given enough exposure to the information campaign from the organi-
zation. If that public then perceives problem recognition and involvement recognition at a high
enough level, and perceives low enough constraint recognition, the public may gradually
become more aware and even active.
In addition to this popular typology, another typology of publics can be suggested based on a
review of relational theory. Specifically, using the quality of relationships (high vs. low) and the
type of relationship (behavioral vs. reputational), one can create four different subsegments of
publics: high-quality reputational relationship public (HQRR), high-quality behavioral relation-ship public (HQBR), low-quality reputational relationship public (LQRR), and low-qualitybehavioral relationship public (LQBR).5 These four types of publics enable practitioners to
foresee and utilize the different strategic potential in each type of PR problem. The next section
illustrates how communicators can synthesize these two typologies.
Synthesis Methods for Segmentation Theories
Both situational theory and relational theory can be used for segmentation simultaneously.
In practice, PR managers can design a survey with measures from both theories, which
provides more useful information about public profiles, and thus a more comprehensive map
of organizational environment and its strategic component. They can then create differential
communication strategies and tactics tailored to the types of PR problems.
This article proposes the simultaneous use of both theories, or a synthesis method of seg-
mentation, to generate more strategic utilities than the use of any single segmentation method.
Table 1 illustrates two linking methods and their subsegments. Each theory can serve as a
main-segmentation basis, as well as a subsequent segmentation tool: situational-theory based
and relationship-theory-based synthesis.6 In Table 1, the situational-theory-based synthesis
5For example, a member of HQRR public would be someone who has never shopped at Walmart but has heard all about its
everyday low price and thus thinks it is a good store; a member of HQBR public would be someone who has shopped at
Walmart and really likes its low price; a member of LQRR public would be someone who has never shopped at Walmart
but hates it because he or she has heard about Walmart’s alleged unfair treatment of its employees; a member of LQBR public
would be someone who has shopped at Walmart and does not like it because he or she thinks the shop assistants are not helpful.6Although the synthesis segmentation method is generally better in planning, subsegmentation may not be necessary
or skipped. In addition, we propose that managerial and PR intervention for a given public relations problem is best
assessed in panel design: pre- and postimplementation. The direction and magnitudes of differences in the measured
objectives (e.g., relationship quality) will indicate program effectiveness.
10 KIM AND NI
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
method uses J. E. Grunig and Hunt’s (1984) typology of publics as the main segmentation
theory, then segments each type of public first by the type of relationship (behavioral vs.
reputational) and then by quality of relations (high quality vs. low quality). In addition, each
segment is provided with a grid that illustrates before, during, and after planned PR
TABLE 1
Types of Segmentation
Types of publics
Main Segmentation Subsegmentation T�1
To (Managerial
and PR
intervention) Tþ1
Situational theory-based
synthesis
Situational Theory Relational Theory
Activist=active public High-quality behavioral relationship public (HQBR)
High-quality reputational relationship public (HQRR)
Low-quality behavioral relationship public (LQBR)
Low-quality reputational relationship public (LQRR)
FORMATIVE AND EVALUATIVE RESEARCH IN PUBLIC RELATIONS 11
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
intervention. In the grid, public relations managers can specify and track communication
objectives (e.g., knowledge level or problem perception) achieved through strategy=tactics that
the organization has selected.
For example, in the PPR problem of the airline merger, practitioners could focus on publics
that are both active and have a poor relationship (i.e., antiactivists) with the organization because
these people are more likely to select and disperse negative information and actively negotiate
with the organization. In the first OPR problem of state health department, practitioners need to
identify publics who both are active and have a good relationship with the organization (i.e.,
proactivists) because these people are more likely to support the organization. In the second
OPR problem, the university fundraiser could identify those segments with a good relationship
and that are an active public on the quality of higher education.
TYPES OF OUTCOMES (EVALUATIVE RESEARCH):THEORY OF PERSUASION VERSUS THEORY OF PROBLEM SOLVING
As practitioners select strategies and tactics for a given PR problem (construct stage in the beha-
vioral molecule, J. E. Grunig, 2003), they construct details of each candidate solution (define
stage) and prepare to make a selection in consideration of profiles of subsegments of strategic
publics (selection stage). In parallel, PR practitioners also select short-term and long-term
objectives in this process, or specify benchmarking criteria—i.e., ‘‘public relations metrics’’
(van Ruler, Vercic, & Vercic, 2008). Planners can make better decisions if they rely on a variety
of communication theories (such as theories of persuasion, theory of problem solving, theory of
relationships, and theory of coorientation) as an evaluative frame.
Process Versus Outcome Objectives
Evaluation of a public relations program should include both process and outcome objectives.
Process (or output) objectives are usually ‘‘the immediate results of a particular PR program
or activity’’ (Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999, p. 2). They include, in general, the quality and amount
of attention or exposure that the organization receives. Public relations practitioners are often
concerned with process=output objectives, i.e., how to communicate with publics. Outcomesmeasure the actual impact that the public relations program or activity has created, e.g., whether
target audience groups actually received, paid attention to, understood, or retained the messages,
or whether these groups experienced any opinion, attitude, and=or behavior changes. However,
the ultimate goal of public relations programs is a quality relationship with a strategic public.
Developing such relationships can take a long time, and usually requires many short-term
programs with an incremental effect.
Public relations practitioners can monitor both process and outcome objectives to evaluate its
communication programs. Notably, process objectives alone cannot ultimately tell whether the
program has created the intended impact. However, achieving process and output objectives has
value in and of itself, because no outcome objectives will be achieved unless these process
objectives are achieved. Moreover, it helps managers to make ongoing modifications in
implementation of the programs and thus improve the achievement of outcome objectives.
12 KIM AND NI
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
Short-Term Objectives
There are five commonly used objectives, which include both one-way effects (effects on publics
only) and two-way effects (effects on both the organization and publics simultaneously)
(J. E. Grunig, 2008).7 The one-way objectives are: exposure, members of a strategic public or
of management receive a message; retention of messages, members of the public also remember
the message; cognition, recipients of messages also understand the messages and develop new
knowledge; attitude, members of a public or of management evaluate the implications of the
messages favorably and intend to behave in a way that is consistent with the message; and beha-vior, members of a public or of management behave in a new or different way—changing the
behavioral relationship between an organization and public, and the consequences that each
has on the other. This article adopts a shortened-version of J. E. Grunig’s (2008) evaluative frame
using three short-term objectives drawn from persuasion theory (knowledge, attitude, behavior)
and the theory of problem solving (perception, cognitive frame, information behaviors).8
Knowledge–attitude–behavior (KAB). Most theories of persuasion adopt attitude as a
central concept and test various causal conditions of attitude formation or change (Eagley &
Chaiken, 1993; Maio & Olson, 2000). Typically, such theories aim to induce attitude-consistent
behavior or behavioral intention, and try to identify key variables that create attitude in the direc-
tion that communicators desire. Such theories are organized by three key variables: knowledge
about the topic, attitude toward a problem or issue, and behavior (intention) consistent with the
KAB objectives allegedly have causal links (cf. domino effect), and it is assumed that
changes in preceding conditions (e.g., preceding attitudinal change leads to behavioral change)
are a necessary condition for the desired behavior in the given communication program.9 Thus,
public relations practitioners can specify these three components among target publics before
and after program implementation and use these changes as metrics for program effectiveness.
Perception, cognitive frame, and information behavior (PCI). Another set of short-term
objectives can be drawn from the theory of problem solving. Starkly different from those
theories of persuasion in terms of its assumption, conceptual scope, and theoretical goals, the
7Different terms are used to describe these five effects as two-way objectives (based on a theory of coorientation,
McLeod & Chaffee, 1973, and adapted for public relations, Broom, 1977, and J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984). Ideally, both
the management and publics will change, although sometimes the degree of changes varies. Corresponding to the afore-
mentioned one-way objectives, these two-way objectives include the following. With mutual awareness, both manage-
ment and public are aware of the effect they have on the other. Message retention becomes accuracy. Both can accurately
remember and repeat what the other said. Cognitive effect becomes understanding. Both have similar cognition about a
problem or issue, or purpose of the organization. Effect on attitude becomes agreement. Both have similar evaluations of
what the organization or public wants and intend to behave in a way that enhances their relationship. Effect on behavior
becomes symbiotic behavior. Both behave in a way that serves the interests of the other, as well as their own interests.8In this article, we use three short-term objectives: knowledge–attitude–behavior versus perception–cognitive frame–
information behaviors. However, the five one-way and two-way short-term objectives can easily fit into our proposed
metatheoretical procedure.9Researchers and practitioners (J. E. Grunig, 1997; J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984) have criticized such a simple causal
specification and domino assumption in attitude change theories. However, many communication campaigns and PR
programs settle on theories of persuasion in current practice. It is beyond this article’s goal to make theoretical judgments
on whether such adoption is problematic or efficacious.
FORMATIVE AND EVALUATIVE RESEARCH IN PUBLIC RELATIONS 13
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
theory of problem solving aims to explain when, why, and how a person experiences motivation
for information behaviors. It assumes most human (information) behaviors are consciously or
unconsciously triggered by some type of problem recognition and problem-solving motivation.
Parallel to the KAB frame, key variables from problem solving theory provide three analogous
but different variable components: perception, cognitive frame, and information behavior. Practi-
tioners can specify variables from each component to assess the effectiveness of their PR programs.
Instead of being used primarily for formative research, these independent variables and dependent
variables could thus all become metrics for the evaluation process to assess the changes in public
state after implementing communication programs. For example, certain tactics can heighten prob-
lem recognition. Other tactics or public relations interventions can lower perceived constraint
recognition (e.g., having knowledge about a problem can reduce overestimated barriers in doing
something about a problem). The perceived level of involvement can also be enhanced, e.g., to
use antecedent conditions of involvement (Sha, 2006). Available and applicable referent criteria
could be improved so that one’s problem-solving action could be more effective and efficient.
For the previously stated reasons, it is also possible to use situational IVs (e.g., problem
recognition) as indicators of intervention effectiveness. For example, in the PPR problem of
the airline merger, practitioners could work more closely with the union in the negotiation
process to take the employees’ concerns into consideration and take actions to address those con-
cerns. That could help lower the employee publics’ problem recognition and hopefully decreate
a public that might go on strike. On the other hand, in the OPR problem of the state health
department, the publics’ problem recognition about skin cancer could be enhanced by using per-
suasion tactics, and their constraint recognition lowered by dispensing free sunscreen products
and offering free skin cancer screenings for local residents.
The dependent variables of the new situational theory are information behaviors, such as
information forwarding, sharing, seeking, attending, and forefending. They can be used to mea-
sure the effectiveness of public relations programs on influencing people’s communicative beha-
viors either in favor of or against the organization, such as blessing or cursing word-of-mouth
effect (positive or negative megaphoning; Kim & Rhee, in press).
Long-Term Objectives
Over the long term, successful short-term communication activities and programs can contribute to
the development of quality relationships with strategic publics. These relationships have value at
the organizational level because they facilitate organizational goal achievement as they increase
strategic publics’ support and decrease their interruptive actions (L. A. Grunig et al., 2002).
Briefly, the OPRA scale and types of relationships are used to measure these objectives. The
success of the intervention is evaluated by the improved relational quality in the two publics,
e.g., increased control mutuality, satisfaction, commitment, and trust, as well as increased
communal relationship. Notably, the evaluation using relationship OPRA is an outcome evalu-
ation, but the evaluation using the IVs in the theory of problem solving (e.g., problem recog-
nition) is a process evaluation. Practitioners could thus combine the two useful evaluation
approaches and choose the one that better fits each type of problem.
For example, for the OPR problem of university budget cuts, the organization could seek to
increase problem perception regarding the financial deficit among university stakeholders and
publics (e.g., alumni, students, legislators). In this case, the university would first identify those
14 KIM AND NI
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
key stakeholders=strategic publics that have consequences on their management and problem
solving (i.e., consequence flows from organizational environment to organization). In so doing,
they will need to know the quality of their relationships with stakeholders=publics because not all
stakeholders=publics will have similarly good relationships with the university. Some stake-
holders may have recently established a better relationship with the university, such as the alumni
public is happy about the men’s basketball team that has recently won the national championship.
They would thus be more sympathetic to the university’s concerns. Next, the organization will
plan and prepare a communication program (public relations intervention) that increases problem
recognition and involvement recognition of the problem. The desired outcomes in this case would
thus be increased problem recognition and involvement recognition of the budget deficit and
lowered constraint recognition in doing something about it. To evaluate the success of the inter-
vention, the organization needs to measure and compare the change in problem perception among
key stakeholders and publics (i.e., the IVs of problem solving theory).
Most typologies of publics focus on the formative aspect (via formative research), but suc-
cessful public relations interventions will result in better relationship quality and more positive
relational types (e.g., communal relationship). This demonstrates the evaluative aspect (via eva-
luative research) of the typology of publics, that is, using the magnitude of quality of relationship
(high vs. low levels of OPRA) as well as the direction of the relationship (behavioral vs. reputa-
tional). The change in the number or mean scores of relationship quality and direction will be a
signal of an effective PR intervention.
Coorientation (Mutual long-term objectives). An organization becomes effective only
when it achieves its strategic goals. The organizational effectiveness of achievement increases
when it cultivates and maintains good quality, long-term relationships with strategic publics.
Public relations increases organizational effectiveness as it solves PR problems and builds and
maintains quality relationships. Achieving short-term objectives is an immediate way of solving
the two types of PR problems, but it further influences the quality of relationships with strategic
publics. In this vein, the strategic public relations frame reviewed thus far links managerial prob-
lem solving with increases in organizational effectiveness in goal achievement. As the last step of
public relations problem solving, organizations should also evaluate the change and status of
quality and type of relationship, which are long-term objectives in strategic public relations.
In addition, PR programs should aim at increased coorientation between the organization and
the public in problem solving (J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984; McLeod & Chaffee, 1973). As PR
managers increase accuracy, understanding, and agreement between the two parties in terms
of knowledge, attitude, or actions (perception, cognitive frame, and information behaviors),
the enhanced coorientation will help cultivate or maintain good relationships between the organi-
zation and the public. Thus, the mutual evaluation of short-term and long-term objectives
becomes a critical step in the strategic public relations procedure.
Figure 3 illustrates the incremental contribution of achieving short-term objectives to long-term
objectives of building relationships with strategic publics, and to enhanced organizational effec-
tiveness in goal achievement. For example, in the case of using theories of persuasion as outcome
metrics, the similarity of current knowledge, attitude, and behaviors between organizational
management and members of a public can be measured as an evaluation–joint-orientation (J. E.
Grunig, 2008; J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984). The extent of joint orientation not only indicates the
success of the PR programs adopted but also the causes of resulting relationships between the
FORMATIVE AND EVALUATIVE RESEARCH IN PUBLIC RELATIONS 15
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
organization and the public about the problem=issue. Likewise, in the case of using the theory of
problem solving, we can measure the similarity of problem perception (e.g., the way problems are
defined and the extent of problem recognition), cognitive frame (e.g., prioritizing problem tasks or
types of decision frames), and information behaviors (e.g., level of information permitting or
seeking) between relevant members of an organization and a public about the problem=issue.
The level of achieved coorientation again indicates the effectiveness of PR intervention=programs
ograms and further influences the quality of relationships between the organization and the public.
THEORY-DRIVEN PROCEDURE:A SYNTHESIS OF GOAL, SEGMENTATION, AND OUTCOMES
Each of the three core questions in strategic public relations (types of PR problems and their
goals, types of segmentation, and types of outcomes) gives two possible categories or options,
and the combinations result in eight different options that practitioners can choose in their public
relations problem solving (see Table 2). The first four options can be used to address PPR
problems. Practitioners can use situational theory to segment publics and rely on persuasion
theories for message design and evaluation (Option 1), use relational theory to segment publics
and rely on persuasion theories for message design and evaluation (Option 2), use situational
theory to segment publics and rely on problem-solving theories for message design and evalu-
ation (Option 3), or use relational theory to segment publics and rely on problem solving theories
for message design and evaluation (Option 4). The remaining four options can be used to address
OPR problems. Practitioners can use situational theory to segment publics and rely on per-
suasion theories for message design and evaluation (Option 5), use relational theory to segment
publics and rely on persuasion theories for message design and evaluation (Option 6), use situa-
tional theory to segment publics and rely on problem-solving theories for message design and
evaluation (Option 7), or use relational theory to segment publics and rely on problem solving
theories for message design and evaluation (Option 8).
FIGURE 3 Goals in different public relations problems. (Color figure available online)
16 KIM AND NI
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
Table 3 illustrates specifically how these options are used and what kinds of objectives are selec-
ted. For Options 1 to 4, public relations programs become necessary because publics would have
recognized some problems. For PPR problems, in general, the key subsegments are activist=active
publics and aware publics (i.e., proactive segments) in that organizations want to decreate publics
by solving problematic consequences that created publics. Hence organizations would be better off
focusing on proactive segments, regardless of the choice of the main segmentation theory. In some
situations, organizations would use relational theory as the main segmentation theory (i.e., a more
relationship-focused approach) to utilize relational history as a leverage for decreasing
problem-related perceptions. For the PPR problem of the airline merger, the organization could
focus on those customers who have had good relationships with the organization in the past and
offer more incentives for them to continue choosing the new airline after the merger. In other situa-
tions, an organization may use situational theory as their main segmentation theory (i.e., a more
problem-focused approach) and more directly focus on active problem solvers. In the same airline
case, the organization could focus on those customers who are more active about potential fare
increases and then identify those who have had satisfactory relationships with the original organiza-
tions. In Options 1 to 4, we highlight with asterisks those key subsegments that deserve more orga-
nizational attention and resource mobilization. In addition, in the cells of each table we posit
specific short-term objectives with the desired direction (arrows) to indicate whether the organiza-
tion should increase, hold, or decrease the selected communicative objectives (e.g., problem and
constraint recognition) for given subsegments of publics.
For Options 5 to 8, public relations programs become necessary because organizations recog-
nize (or anticipate) some problems for their stakeholders or some problems that are better solved
with public’s cooperation. In OPR problems, organizations want to create publics through infor-
mation campaigns to solve organizational problems (e.g., creating more donations for a financial
crisis) or to solve anticipated publics’ problems (e.g., enhancing preparedness for skin cancer).
Again, in both situations, organizations will be better off if they focus on proactive segments—activist=active publics and aware publics. It is because these subsegments are more likely than
TABLE 2
Guiding Procedure: Selecting Formative and Evaluative Research Options by Types of Public Relations
Problems�Types of Segmentation Theory�Types of Outcomes
7¼Situational PCI objectives in organization-initiated PR problems; Option 8¼Relational PCI objectives in
organization-initiated PR problems.
FORMATIVE AND EVALUATIVE RESEARCH IN PUBLIC RELATIONS 17
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
TABLE3
GuidingProcedure:EightOptions
Types
ofpu
blics
Objectives
For
Option1:
SituationalKABob
jectives
inpublic-initiated
PRproblems
Objectivesfrom
theory
ofPersuasion
MainSegm
entation
(Withsituationaltheory)
Subsegmentation
(Withrelation
altheory)
Kno
wledg
eAttitud
eBehaviors
Act
ivis
t=ac
tiv
ep
ub
lic
Hig
h-q
ual
ity
beh
avio
ral
rela
tionsh
ippubli
c(H
QB
R)�
(")
Kn
ow
led
ge
sup
po
rtin
g
org
aniz
atio
n’s
po
siti
on
(")
Fav
ora
ble
atti
tude
for
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
s
po
siti
on
(")
Su
pp
ort
ive
acti
on
sfo
r
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
s
po
siti
on
Hig
h-q
ual
ity
reputa
tional
rela
tionsh
ippubli
c(H
QR
R)�
Low
-qual
ity
beh
avio
ral
rela
tionsh
ippubli
c(L
QB
R)�
(�)
Kn
ow
led
ge
op
po
site
to
org
aniz
atio
n’s
po
siti
on
(�)
Unfa
vora
ble
atti
tude
agai
nst
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
s
po
siti
on
(�)
Anta
gonis
tic
acti
ons
agai
nst
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
s
po
siti
on
Low
-qual
ity
reputa
tional
rela
tionsh
ippubli
c(L
QR
R)�
Aw
are
pu
bli
cH
QB
R�
(")
Kn
ow
led
ge
sup
po
rtin
g
org
aniz
atio
n’s
po
siti
on
(")
Fav
ora
ble
atti
tude
for
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
s
po
siti
on
(")
Su
pp
ort
ive
acti
on
sfo
r
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
s
po
siti
on
HQ
RR�
LQ
BR�
(#)
Kn
ow
led
ge
op
po
site
to
org
aniz
atio
n’s
po
siti
on
(#)
Unfa
vora
ble
atti
tude
agai
nst
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
s
po
siti
on
(#)
Anta
gonis
tic
acti
ons
agai
nst
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
s
po
siti
on
LQ
RR�
Lat
ent
pu
bli
cH
QB
R("
)K
no
wle
dg
esu
pp
ort
ing
org
aniz
atio
n’s
po
siti
on
(")
Fav
ora
ble
atti
tude
for
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
s
po
siti
on
HQ
RR
LQ
BR
(#)
Kn
ow
led
ge
op
po
site
to
org
aniz
atio
n’s
po
siti
on
LQ
RR
No
np
ub
lic
HQ
BR
HQ
RR
LQ
BR
LQ
RR
18
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
For
Option2:
Relationa
lKABob
jectives
inpu
blic-initiated
PRproblems
Objectivesfrom
theory
ofPersuasion
Mainsegm
entation
(Withrelational
theory)
Subsegmentation
(With
situationaltheory)
Knowledge
Attitude
Behaviors
HQ
BR
No
np
ub
lic
(")
Kn
ow
led
ge
sup
po
rtin
g
org
aniz
atio
n’s
posi
tion
(")
Fav
ora
ble
atti
tude
for
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
sp
osi
tion
Lat
ent
pu
bli
c
Aw
are
pu
bli
c�("
)K
no
wle
dg
esu
ppo
rtin
g
org
aniz
atio
n’s
posi
tion
(")
Fav
ora
ble
atti
tude
for
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
sp
osi
tion
(")
Su
pp
ort
ive
acti
on
sfo
r
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
s
po
siti
on
Act
ive=
acti
vis
tp
ub
lic�
HQ
RR
No
np
ub
lic
(")
Kn
ow
led
ge
sup
po
rtin
g
org
aniz
atio
n’s
posi
tion
(")
Fav
ora
ble
atti
tude
for
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
sp
osi
tion
Lat
ent
pu
bli
c
Aw
are
pu
bli
c�(#
)K
no
wle
dg
eo
pp
osi
teto
org
aniz
atio
n’s
posi
tion
(#)
Unfa
vora
ble
atti
tude
agai
nst
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
sp
osi
tion
(#)
An
tago
nis
tic
acti
on
s
agai
nst
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
s
po
siti
on
Act
ive=
acti
vis
tp
ub
lic�
LQ
BR
No
np
ub
lic
(�)
Kn
ow
led
ge
op
posi
teto
org
aniz
atio
n’s
posi
tion
Lat
ent
pu
bli
c
Aw
are
pu
bli
c�(�
)K
no
wle
dg
eo
pp
osi
teto
org
aniz
atio
n’s
posi
tion
(-)
Unfa
vora
ble
atti
tude
agai
nst
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
sp
osi
tion
Act
ive=
acti
vis
tp
ub
lic�
LQ
RR
No
np
ub
lic
(�)
Kn
ow
led
ge
op
posi
teto
org
aniz
atio
n’s
posi
tion
Lat
ent
pu
bli
c
Aw
are
pu
bli
c�(�
)K
no
wle
dg
eo
pp
osi
teto
org
aniz
atio
n’s
posi
tion
Act
ive=
acti
vis
tp
ub
lic�
(Con
tinued
)
19
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
TABLE3
Continued
For
Option3:
SituationalPCIob
jectives
inpublic-initiated
PRproblems
Objectivesfrom
theory
ofproblem
solving
Mainsegm
entation
(WithSituationalTheory)
Subsegmentation
(WithRelationa
lTheory)
Perception
Cog
nitive
fram
eInform
ationbeha
viors
Act
ivis
t=ac
tiv
ep
ub
lic
HQ
BR�
(#)
Pro
ble
mre
cog
nit
ion
(#)
Inv
olv
emen
tre
cog
nit
ion
(")
Con
stra
int
reco
gnit
ion
(")
(bal
ance
dan
d=or
obje
ctiv
e)
Ref
eren
tcr
iter
ion
(#)
Info
rmat
ion
seek
ing
(#)
Info
rmat
ion
forw
ardin
g
(#)
(subje
ctiv
e)
Info
rmat
ion
fore
fendin
g
HQ
RR�
LQ
BR�
LQ
RR�
Aw
are
pu
bli
cH
QB
R�
(#)
Pro
ble
mre
cog
nit
ion
(#)
Inv
olv
emen
tre
cog
nit
ion
(")
Con
stra
int
reco
gnit
ion
(")
(bal
ance
dan
d=or
obje
ctiv
e)
Ref
eren
tcr
iter
ion
HQ
RR�
LQ
BR�
LQ
RR�
Lat
ent
pu
bli
cH
QB
R(�
)P
rob
lem
reco
gn
itio
n
HQ
RR
LQ
BR
LQ
RR
No
np
ub
lic
HQ
BR
HQ
RR
LQ
BR
LQ
RR
20
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
For
Option4:
Relationa
lPCIob
jectives
inpublic-initiated
PRproblems
Objectivesfrom
theory
ofproblem
solving
Mainsegm
entation
(Withrelational
theory)
Subsegmentation
(Withsituationaltheory)
Perception
Cognitive
fram
eInform
ationbehaviors
HQ
BR
No
np
ub
lic
Lat
ent
pu
bli
c
Aw
are
pu
bli
c(#
)("
)P
rob
lem
reco
gn
itio
n
(#)
(")
Inv
olv
emen
t
reco
gnit
ion
(�)(#)
Con
stra
int
reco
gnit
ion
(")
(bal
ance
dan
d=o
r
obje
ctiv
e)R
efer
ent
crit
erio
n
(#)
(")
Info
rmat
ion
seek
ing
(#)
(")
Info
rmat
ion
forw
ard
ing
(#)
(")
(obje
ctiv
e)
Info
rmat
ion
fore
fendin
g
(")
Pro
-org
aniz
atio
nac
tio
n
Act
ive=
acti
vis
tp
ub
lic�
HQ
RR
No
np
ub
lic
Lat
ent
pu
bli
c
Aw
are
pu
bli
c�(#
)("
)P
rob
lem
reco
gn
itio
n
(#)
(")
Inv
olv
emen
t
reco
gnit
ion
(�)(#)
Con
stra
int
reco
gnit
ion
(")
(bal
ance
dan
d=o
r
obje
ctiv
e)R
efer
ent
crit
erio
n
(#)
(")
Info
rmat
ion
seek
ing
(#)
(")
Info
rmat
ion
forw
ard
ing
(#)
(")
(obje
ctiv
e)
Info
rmat
ion
fore
fendin
gA
ctiv
e=ac
tiv
ist
pu
bli
c�
LQ
BR
Lat
ent
pu
bli
c
Aw
are
pu
bli
c�(#
)P
rob
lem
reco
gnit
ion
(")
(bal
ance
dan
d=o
r
obje
ctiv
e)R
efer
ent
crit
erio
n
(#)
Info
rmat
ion
seek
ing
(#)
Info
rmat
ion
forw
ardin
g
(#)
(subje
ctiv
e)
Info
rmat
ion
fore
fendin
g
(#)
Anti
org
aniz
atio
nac
tion
Act
ive=
acti
vis
tp
ub
lic�
LQ
RR
No
np
ub
lic
Lat
ent
pu
bli
c
Aw
are
pu
bli
c�(#
)P
rob
lem
reco
gnit
ion
(")
(bal
ance
dan
d=o
r
obje
ctiv
e)R
efer
ent
crit
erio
n
(#)
Info
rmat
ion
seek
ing
(#)
Info
rmat
ion
forw
ardin
g
(#)
(subje
ctiv
e)
Info
rmat
ion
fore
fendin
g
Act
ive=
acti
vis
tp
ub
lic�
(Con
tinued
)
21
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
TABLE3
Continued
For
Option5:
SituationalKABob
jectives
inorganization-initiated
PRproblems
Objectivesfrom
theory
ofPersuasion
Mainsegm
entation
(Withsituationaltheory)
Subsegmentation
(Withrelational
theory)
Knowledge
Attitude
Behaviors
Act
ivis
t=ac
tiv
ep
ub
lic
HQ
BR�
(")
Know
ledge
consi
sten
tw
ith
org
aniz
atio
n’s
po
siti
on
(")
Fav
ora
ble
atti
tud
efo
r
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
sp
osi
tio
n
(")
Su
pp
ort
ive
acti
on
sfo
r
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
sposi
tion
HQ
RR�
LQ
BR�
(")
Know
ledge
consi
sten
tw
ith
org
aniz
atio
n’s
po
siti
on
(")
Fav
ora
ble
atti
tud
efo
r
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
sp
osi
tio
nL
QR
R�
Aw
are
Pu
bli
cH
QB
R�
(")
Know
ledge
consi
sten
tw
ith
org
aniz
atio
n’s
po
siti
on
(")
Fav
ora
ble
atti
tud
efo
r
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
sp
osi
tio
n
(")
Su
pp
ort
ive
acti
on
sfo
r
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
sposi
tion
HQ
RR�
LQ
BR�
(")
Know
ledge
consi
sten
tw
ith
org
aniz
atio
n’s
po
siti
on
LQ
RR�
Lat
ent
Pu
bli
cH
QB
R("
)K
now
ledge
consi
sten
tw
ith
org
aniz
atio
n’s
po
siti
on
(")
Fav
ora
ble
atti
tud
efo
r
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
sp
osi
tio
nH
QR
R
LQ
BR
(")
Know
ledge
consi
sten
tw
ith
org
aniz
atio
n’s
Po
siti
on
LQ
RR
No
np
ub
lic
HQ
BR
(")
Know
ledge
consi
sten
tw
ith
org
aniz
atio
n’s
po
siti
on
HQ
RR
LQ
BR
(")
Know
ledge
consi
sten
tw
ith
org
aniz
atio
n’s
po
siti
on
LQ
RR
22
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
For
Option6:
Relationa
lKABob
jectives
inorganization-initiated
PRproblems
Objectivesfrom
theory
ofPersuasion
Mainsegm
entation
(Withrelation
altheory)
Subsegmentation
(Withsituational
theory)
Kno
wledg
eAttitud
eBehaviors
HQ
BR
No
np
ub
lic
(")
Know
ledge
consi
sten
t
wit
horg
aniz
atio
n’s
posi
tion
(")
Fav
ora
ble
atti
tude
for
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
s
po
siti
on
Lat
ent
pu
bli
c
Aw
are
pu
bli
c�("
)K
now
ledge
consi
sten
t
wit
horg
aniz
atio
n’s
posi
tion
(")
Fav
ora
ble
atti
tude
for
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
s
po
siti
on
(")
Su
pp
ort
ive
acti
on
sfo
r
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
s
po
siti
on
Act
ive=
acti
vis
t
pu
bli
c�
HQ
RR
No
np
ub
lic
(")
Know
ledge
consi
sten
t
wit
horg
aniz
atio
n’s
posi
tion
(")
Fav
ora
ble
atti
tude
for
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
s
po
siti
on
Lat
ent
pu
bli
c
Aw
are
pu
bli
c�("
)K
now
ledge
consi
sten
t
wit
horg
aniz
atio
n’s
posi
tion
(")
Fav
ora
ble
atti
tude
for
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
s
po
siti
on
(")
Su
pp
ort
ive
acti
on
sfo
r
org
aniz
atio
nan
dit
s
po
siti
on
Act
ive=
acti
vis
t
pu
bli
c�
LQ
BR
No
np
ub
lic
Lat
ent
pu
bli
c
Aw
are
pu
bli
c�("
)K
now
ledge
consi
sten
t
wit
horg
aniz
atio
n’s
posi
tion
Act
ive=
acti
vis
t
pu
bli
c�
LQ
RR
No
np
ub
lic
Lat
ent
pu
bli
c
Aw
are
pu
bli
c�("
)K
now
ledge
consi
sten
t
wit
horg
aniz
atio
n’s
posi
tion
Act
ive=
acti
vis
t
pu
bli
c�
(Con
tinued
)
23
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
TABLE3
Continued
For
Option7:
SituationalPCIob
jectives
inorganization-initiated
PRproblems
Objectivesfrom
theory
ofprob
lem
Solving
Mainsegm
entation
(Withsituationaltheory)
Subsegmentation
(Withrelation
altheory)
Perception
Cog
nitive
Frame
Inform
ationbeha
viors
Act
ivis
t=ac
tiv
ep
ub
lic
HQ
BR�
(")
Info
rmat
ion
seek
ing
(")
Info
rmat
ion
forw
ardin
g
(")
Info
rmat
ion
fore
fendin
g
(")
Act
ion
HQ
RR�
LQ
BR�
LQ
RR�
Aw
are
pu
bli
cH
QB
R�
(")
Inv
olv
emen
tre
cog
nit
ion
(#)
Co
nst
rain
tre
cog
nit
ion
(")
Ref
eren
tcr
iter
ion
(")
Info
rmat
ion
seek
ing
(")
Info
rmat
ion
fore
fendin
gH
QR
R�
LQ
BR�
LQ
RR�
Lat
ent
pu
bli
cH
QB
R("
)P
rob
lem
reco
gn
itio
n
(")
Inv
olv
emen
tre
cog
nit
ion
(#)
Co
nst
rain
tre
cog
nit
ion
(")
Ref
eren
tcr
iter
ion
HQ
RR
LQ
BR
LQ
RR
No
np
ub
lic
HQ
BR
(")
Pro
ble
mre
cog
nit
ion
HQ
RR
LQ
BR
LQ
RR
24
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
For
Option8:
Relationa
lPCIob
jectives
inorganization-initiated
PRproblems
Objectivesfrom
theory
ofproblem
solving
MainSegm
entation
(Withrelation
altheory)
Subsegmentation
(Withsituationaltheory)
Perception
Cognitive
fram
eInform
ationbehaviors
HQ
BR
No
np
ub
lic
(")
Pro
ble
mre
cog
nit
ion
(")
Inv
olv
emen
tre
cog
nit
ion
Lat
ent
pu
bli
c
Aw
are
pu
bli
c�("
)P
rob
lem
reco
gnit
ion
(")
Inv
olv
emen
tre
cog
nit
ion
(#)
Co
nst
rain
tre
cog
nit
ion
(")
Ref
eren
tcr
iter
ion
(")
Info
rmat
ion
seek
ing
(")
Info
rmat
ion
forw
ardin
g
(")
Info
rmat
ion
fore
fendin
g
(")
Act
ion
Act
ive=
acti
vis
tp
ub
lic�
HQ
RR
No
np
ub
lic
(")
Pro
ble
mR
ecog
nit
ion
Lat
ent
pu
bli
c
Aw
are
pu
bli
c�("
)P
rob
lem
reco
gnit
ion
(")
Inv
olv
emen
tre
cog
nit
ion
(#)
Co
nst
rain
tre
cog
nit
ion
(")
Ref
eren
tcr
iter
ion
(")
Info
rmat
ion
seek
ing
(")
Info
rmat
ion
forw
ardin
g
(")
Info
rmat
ion
fore
fendin
g
Act
ive=
acti
vis
tp
ub
lic�
LQ
BR
No
np
ub
lic
(")
Pro
ble
mre
cog
nit
ion
Lat
ent
pu
bli
c
Aw
are
pu
bli
c�("
)P
rob
lem
reco
gnit
ion
(")
Inv
olv
emen
tre
cog
nit
ion
(#)
Co
nst
rain
tre
cog
nit
ion
(")
(obje
ctiv
e)R
efer
ent
crit
erio
n("
)In
form
atio
nse
ekin
g
(")
(ob
ject
ive)
Info
rmat
ion
fore
fendin
g
Act
ive=
acti
vis
tp
ub
lic�
LQ
RR
No
np
ub
lic
(")
Pro
ble
mR
ecog
nit
ion
Lat
ent
pu
bli
c
Aw
are
pu
bli
c�("
)P
rob
lem
reco
gnit
ion
(")
Inv
olv
emen
tre
cog
nit
ion
(#)
Co
nst
rain
tre
cog
nit
ion
(")
(obje
ctiv
e)R
efer
ent
crit
erio
n("
)In
form
atio
nse
ekin
g
(")
(ob
ject
ive)
Info
rmat
ion
fore
fendin
g
Act
ive=
acti
vis
tp
ub
lic�
25
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
latent or nonpublics to seek or pay attention to the information that organizations provide (J. E.
Grunig & Hunt, 1984). Furthermore, these active subsegments tend to see the connections
between the problem they are motivated by and other related problems (problem chain-
recognition effect; Kim, Shen, & Morgan, 2011). Organizations will thus have strategic leverage
to enhance problem perception and motivation for the problem they recognize.
As in PPR problems, managers of OPR problems can also use both relational theory and
situational theory as their main segmentation theory based on their needs for strategic and tac-
tical focus. In some situations, the organization would utilize previous relational history as a way
of increasing problem perception. For example, for the OPR problem of university budget cuts,
alumni who are satisfied with their alma mater are more likely to donate money than dissatisfied
alumni. In other situations, an organization may focus on problem perception to trigger problems
they seek to resolve. For example, in the same university financial crisis, using situational theory
as the main segmentation theory, a university would first identify publics active about poor qual-
ity in US higher education (e.g., parents) and further identify, among these publics, those who
have satisfactory relationships with the university. It is easier to trigger problem perception of
these subsegments on the university’s financial crisis.
For Options 5 to 8 in Table 3, we also highlight those key subsegments with asterisks that deserve
more organizational attention and resource mobilization. In addition, in the cells of each table we
posit specific short-term objectives with desired direction (arrows) to indicate whether an organiza-
tion should increase ("), hold (-), or decrease (#) the selected communicative objectives for given
subsegments of publics. Notably, organizations should select the types of synthesis method for seg-
mentation and the desired communicative objectives. Although we only offer a list of short-term
objectives, practitioners should identify detailed tactics or assessment of given objectives regarding
subsegments (e.g., tracking the changes of information seeking and forwarding about the problem).
Choosing Among the Different Options
This section provides a generic guideline and eight taxonomies of short-term objectives to assist
practitioners in matching their communication objectives with different subsegments of a popu-
lation. Two guiding issues in selecting among the eight different options are the direction of the
effect—symmetric versus asymmetric (J. E. Grunig, 2008; J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984) and the
type of program strategies—relationship-focused versus problem-focused.
Direction of effects. Organizations may take a symmetrical communication approach—giving similar weight to both the organization’s and a public’s interests, or a more asymmetricalcommunication approach—giving more weight either to their own interests or the publics’
interest. If an organization’s management and public relations managers adopt a unicentered
asymmetrical perspective, their choice of solutions (PR programs) may be prone to a unilateralapproach focusing on education or persuasion to change a public’s perception, attitude, and
behavior. In contrast, as the organization’s management and public relations managers adopt
a multicentered symmetrical perspective, their choice may be inclined to a bilateral approachfocusing on negotiation or problem solving to change problem-causing conditions or contexts.
Thus, in PPR problems an asymmetric organization will look for ways to improve persuasion
effectiveness; a symmetric organization will look for ways to negotiate and potential for conflict
resolution. Likewise, in OPR problems an asymmetric organization will look for ways to educate
26 KIM AND NI
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
and reform public behaviors (organization-driven programs); a symmetrical organization will
look for ways to assist and facilitate a public’s voluntary problem-solving process and to improve
problem-solving resources and contexts (public-driven programs).
Types of program strategies. Another consideration in choosing among the options is
whether problem-solving strategies will be problem focused or relationship focused. In general,
organizations need to consider or to utilize preexisting problem perception (the problem-focused
strategy) or preexisting relationships among members of publics (the relationship-focused
strategy). In some cases, PR managers may need to use a problem-solving strategy to decrease
or utilize problem recognition among existing active=activist publics. For example, organizations
would need to identify those who present more strategic threats to them regarding the given prob-
lem (e.g., a public who is angry about a major merger between two airlines or community leaders
concerned about skin health problem), or those who provide more strategic opportunities to
increase greater problem perception or mobilize support (e.g., alumni concerned about their uni-
versity’s budget deficit). In other cases, PR managers would need some problem-solving strategy
to utilize preexisting (quality of) relationships to decrease problem-causing actions (e.g., con-
sumer concerns about rising airfares) or to foster desired problem-solving actions (e.g., donations
to help with the university budget cut) among members of publics.
In the problem-focused strategy discussed in the first case, organizations are likely to use
situational theory as their main segmentation theory to break down the environment based on
the extent of problem perception. In the relationship-focused strategy discussed in the second
case, organizations are likely to use relational theory as their main segmentation theory to break
down the environment based on the quality and types of relationships.
INTEGRATION: A METATHEORETICAL PROCEDURE INTWO TYPES OF PR PROBLEMS
This article starts from the need for an integration of existing theories to better extend theory and
guide practice. After reviewing research programs that shed light on three core questions about
problem diagnosis, segmentation methods, and evaluation methods, this article presents a
theory-driven procedure for making strategic choices in building strategies=tactics and goals=objectives to solve public relations problems. This procedure contributes to public relations
research and practice in various ways. First, in the past 25 years public relations research has wit-
nessed a tremendous growth in theory development (Botan & Hazleton, 2006). The need for more
theory, which was the case in 1989, has given way to the need for diversity and competition
between theories in public relations (Botan & Taylor, 2004). Although this is certainly a valid
concern for the field, we also believe that for further theory development, it is necessary to fully
utilize the existing theories by integrating them into useful frameworks.
This article develops and explicates a taxonomy of PR problems. This taxonomy is theoreti-
cally driven in that the difference between problem types (a) is explained by theoretical constructs
such as ‘‘consequences,’’ ‘‘strategic threats,’’ and ‘‘strategic opportunities’’ (Kim et al., 2008,
p. 753), and (b) details the different roles of publics with different activeness regarding the issue.
This taxonomy could become the foundation of practicing and teaching public relations because
it helps to distinguish the different sources of problems and guide the development of goals,
objectives, strategies, and tactics based on the characteristics of PR problems.
FORMATIVE AND EVALUATIVE RESEARCH IN PUBLIC RELATIONS 27
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
This article also contributes to public relations research by using existing theories in an inno-
vative way that extends from the usual processes in practice to procedures that use guiding prin-
ciples to enhance current practices (J. E. Grunig, 2003). In particular, citing Carter (1974), ‘‘we
can invent, and reuse old structures in new ways, rather than trying to retrieve or discover a pre-
sumably appropriate given structural-functional redundancy’’ (p. 6) J. E. Grunig (2003) sug-
gested that ‘‘it is not always necessary to produce new structures nor is it necessary to limit
the search to existing structures’’ (p. 90). We aimed to do just that. We illustrated the usefulness
of the relational theory in not only evaluative, but also formative, research. Likewise, we demon-
strated the new utility of situational theory as a nonfinancial metric for program evaluation, even
though the theory has been mostly used for formative research. Thus, the two perhaps most-used
public relation theories are more practical and applicable. The article also refined situational
theory, specifically its segmentation procedure, by proposing a new segmentation method and
refined typologies of publics. A specific procedure using the variables in both theories was also
proposed to facilitate practitioners’ choice and use of these variables.
In conclusion, this article advances theory development in relating organizational-level factors
(such as symmetrical communication culture and the focus of any public relations program) with
the actual public relations procedures. We aim to move public relations practice from a positive
description of what to do to a theoretical answer to the question of ‘‘Why do we do it this way?’’
REFERENCES
Aldoory, L., & Sha, B.-L. (2007). The situational theory of publics: Practical applications, methodological challenges,
and theoretical horizons. In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication
management: Challenges for the next generation (pp. 339–355). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Botan, C. H., & Hazleton, V. (2006). Public relations in a new age. In C. H. Botan & V. Hazleton (Eds.), Public relations
theory II (pp. 1–18). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Botan, C. H., & Taylor, M. (2004). Public relations state of the field. Journal of Communication, 54, 645–661.
Broom, G. M. (2009). Cutlip and Center’s effective public relations. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Carter, R. F. (1974, October). A journalistic cybernetic. Presented at the conference on Communication and Control in
Social Processes, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
Eagley, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace.
Ferguson, M. A. (1984, August). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships as a public relationsparadigm. Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Gainesville, FL.
Grunig, J. E. (1966). The role of information in economic decision making. Journalism Monographs, 3.
Grunig, J. E. (1968). Information, entrepreneurship, and economic development: A study of the decision making
processes of Colombian Latifundistas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin.
Grunig, J. E. (1997). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges and new research. In D. Moss,
T. MacManus & D. Vercic (Eds.), Public relations research: An international perspective (pp. 3–48). London, UK:
International Thomson Business Press.
Grunig, J. E. (2003). Constructing public relations theory and practice. In B. Dervin, S. Chaffee & L. Foreman-Wernet (Eds.),
Communication, another kind of horse race: Essays honoring Richard F. Carter (pp. 85–115). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Grunig, J. E. (2005). Situational theory of publics. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Encyclopedia of public relations (pp. 778–780).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Grunig, J. E. (2006). Furnishing the edifice: Ongoing research on public relations as a strategic management function.
Journal of Public Relations Research, 18, 151–176.
Grunig, J. E. (2008). Conceptualizing quantitative research in public relations. In B. van Ruler, A. T. Vercic & D. Vercic
(Eds.), Public relations metrics: Research and evaluation (pp. 88–119). New York, NY: Routledge.
Grunig, J. E., Ferrari, M. A. & Franca, F. (2009). Relacoes publicas: Teoria, contexto e relacionamentos (Public
relations: Theory, context, and relationships) Sao Paulo, Brazil: Difusao Editora.
28 KIM AND NI
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f Sy
dney
] at
22:
00 0
5 M
ay 2
013
Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (2001, March). Guidelines for formative and evaluative research in public affairs: Areport for the Department of Energy Office of Science. Washington, DC: US Department of Energy. http://www.
Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of
relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.),
Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations
(pp. 23–53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grunig, J. E., & Hung, C.-J. (2002, March). The effect of relationships on reputation and reputation on relationships: Acognitive, behavioral study. Paper presented at the 5th Annual International, Interdisciplinary Public Relations
Research Conference, Miami, Florida.
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Grunig, J. E., & Repper, F. C. (1992). Strategic management, publics, and issues. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence inpublic relations and communication management (pp. 31–64). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of
communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: Institute
for Public Relations.
Jo, S. (2006). Measurement of organization–public relationships: Validation of measurement using a manufacturer–
retailer relationship. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18, 225–248.
Ki, E.-J., & Hon, L. C. (2007). Testing the linkages among the organization–public relationship and attitude and beha-
vioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19, 1–23.
Kim, J.-N. (2011). Public segmentation using situational theory of problem solving: Illustrating summation method and
testing segmented public profiles. PRism 8(2): http://www.journal.org/homepage.html.
Kim, J.-N., Bach, S. B., & Clelland, I. J. (2007). Symbolic or behavioral management? Corporate reputation in
