Chapter 8 Communication Theories and Contexts LEARNING OUTCOMES After studying Chapter 8, you should be able to: 1 Differentiate between “communication” and ‘public relations” i Identify the first task of public relations communication in the crowded message environment. 1 Define communication as a two-way process of exchanging signals to inform, persuade, and instruct within intrapersonal, interpersonal, and social contexts. @ Diagram the communication model, and label and briefly discuss its elements, List and briefly discuss the four major categories of public relations communication effects. 1 Identify and discuss the five dimensions of public opinion. 1 Define attitude and opinion, and distinguish between them. ‘ @ Diagram and explain the model of individual orientation and the model of coorientation. @ Define the four states of coorientational consensus. ‘No human capability has been more fundamental to the development of civilization than the ability to collect, share, and apply knowledge. Civilization has been possible only through the process of human communication. —Freperick Wituiams* Publicity is a great purifier because it sets in action the forces of public opinion, and in this country public opinion controls the courses of the nation. —Cuantes Evans Hucues, 11TH Cuer Justice, US. Supreme Court (1930-1941)? synonymous, In fact, they are not. As explained in Chapter 1, public relations is about building and maintaining relationships between organizations and their stakeholder publics. Chapters 11 through 14 explain the four-step process of strategic public relations: research, planning, imple- mentation, and evaluation. In contrast to this four-step process, “communication” is done by organizations in the third step of strategic public relations, when the plan is being implemented. M any people confuse “communication” and “public relations,” believing the terms to be 167 Scanned with168 Parti + Foundations ‘Social environment Context of relationship A's frame of reference ZS» reference a a, FIGURE 8.1. Communication Process Model As Figure 8.1 illustrates, communication is a reciprocal process of exchanging signals to inform, persuade, or instruct, based on shared meanings and conditioned by the communicators’ relationship and the social context. This chapter explains some of the theoretical and practical contexts in which communication takes place, while Chapter 13 offers ‘more specific information on how to design and implement communication messages. Understanding the various contexts for communication is important because each of us, every day, is exposed to thousands of messages. Even as you read this chapter of Effective Public Relations, you may be exposed to many other messages from other sources. These could include postings on your Facebook wall, numerous Tweets from people you follow, Lady Gaga’s latest hit on your iPod, the sound of your neighbors’ argument coming from the unit next door, your roommate asking if you want to order pizza, and a text from your mom asking how last week's, test went. During the rest of the day, you are exposed to many more messages, most of which you probably do not seek out. You may screen out many because you have little or no interest in the content. You skip some because you do not have time to pay attention. You miss others simply because you are preoccupied with something else and “tune out.” In short, getting your attention is the goal of a fierce competition. The contenders include not only individual people, but also advertisers, news media, entertainment media, political parties, and all manner of other spe interest groups. To defend against the onslaught of attention seekers, people become choosy, even resistant. As a result of this onslaught of messages and information overload, few messages get their attention, Even fewer have an impact. No wonder some communication scholars refer to “the obstinate audience.”® Public relations communications compete in this crowded message environment. The first taskis to get the attention of target publics. The second is to stimulate interest in message content The third is to build a desire and intention to act on the message. And the fourth is to direct the action of those who behave consistent with the message. Unfortunately, the communication process is not as simple as many apparently believe. DISSEMINATION VERSUS COMMUNICATION The myth of communication suggests that sending a message is the same as communicat~ ing a message. In essence, dissemination is confused with communication. This confusion is apparent in public relations when practitioners offer media placements (clippings, “mentions, wreurnieu wierdChapter 8 + Communication Theories and Contexts 169 cable placements, broadcast logs, rracltioners probable feast logs, etc.) as evidence that communication has occurred. These eat sare tly subscribe tothe communication model introduced by information hie 194084 aver, based on their work for Bell Telephone Laboratories in the i nan a Wowvers ‘model consists of an information source, message or signal, oo ara eats oF destination, Not suprisingly, because of thee telephone perspective, the communication process produces relatively few sad simple problems. Technical prob: lens arse en the signal os channel ints or distorts the message being transmitted from the source tothe sender, Semantic or ielity problems occu when the receiver's perception of the message a “aning are not the same as those intended by the sender. Influence problems indicate that the sender's message did not produce the desired result on the part ofthe receiver. As Weaver wrote, ‘The questions to be studied in a information, used to chan, ‘communication system have to do with the amount of the capacity of the communication channel, the coding process that may be \Be a message into a signal and the effects of noise.> But as public relations practitioners know, however, communication with target publics is much more complicated than this set of questions suggests, As the late Wilbur Schramm pointed ut, communication is complicated by people: ‘Communication (human communication, a least) is something people do. Ithas no life of its own, There is no magic about it except what people in the communication relationship put into it, There is no meaning in a message except what the people put into it. When one studies communication, therefore, one studies people—relating to each other and to their groups, organizations, and societies, influencing each other, being influenced, informing and being informed, teaching and being taught, entertaining and being entertained—by means of certain signs which exist separately from either of them. To understand the human communication process one must understand how people relate to each other.* ‘This is no simple task. In fact, Schramm’s concept of communication requires a two-way- ‘ process model in which sender and receiver operate within the contexts of their respective frames of reference, their relationship, and the social situation. ‘The process of informing involves four steps (1) attracting attention to the communication, (2) achieving acceptance of the message, (3) having it interpreted as intended, and (4) getting the message stored for later use. The process of persuasion goes beyond active learning to a fifth step—accepting change: yielding to the wishes or point of view ofthe sender. The more demanding process of instruction adds a sixth step: stimulating active learning and practice. Clearly, barriers to achleving the outcomes of informing, persuasion, and instruction increase with the addition of the fifth and sixth steps in the processes. ELEMENTS OF THE MASS COMMUNICATION MODEL Early communication researchers studied the individual elements in the communication process model to determine the effect of each on the process. Most studies dealt with persuasion as the desired outcome, but more recent research has expanded the range of effects studied. Senders Characteristics of message sources affect receivers’ initial acceptance of the message but have litle effect on long-term message impact. Hovland and his colleagues called this long-term source impact the “sleeper effect."* For example, according to the theory of source credibility and attractiveness, safe-sex messages promoting prevention of HIV infection among college students Scanned with170) Part Il + Foundations ted by highly credible sources, such a5 g sted as believable when present ty, than when presented by peers t-term and long-term source impacts. Source Hing to one scholar. The theory suggests that ddd weight to messages. Multiplying ght factor of the source in the are more readily a recognized medical autho More recent research suggests both shor amplifies the value of information, accord bility, and expertness of the source a each other yields the wel ccredibilit the perceived status the three source characteristics by communication process.? Ch Researchers have concluded that although source characteristics affect the communication process, their impact varies from situation to situation, from topic fo topic, and from time to time, ares minimum, however, source characteristics affect receivers initial receptivity to messages, Message Message characteristics surely have an impact in the communication Prices but many communication scholars say, “Meaning is in people, not words. This observation leads naturally to the conclusion that different people receiving the same message may interpret it dilferently, attribute different meanings to it, and react to it in different ways. Al the Same, message characteristics can have powerful effects, even if they do not conform te simple and Teet cause-and.effect explanations, As suggested by the notion of the obstinate audience, message effects are mediated by receiver, thereby frustrating the search for rules that apply in all communication situations. In the final analysis, however, many characteristics of the source, receiver and communi- cation situation mediate the impact of messages on receivers. One writer concluded, When main-effect findings demonstrated relationships between the selected variable and some measure ofattitude/behavior change, additional variables such as source characteristics, power, and receiver variables were investigated. D Medium or Channel New technologies for delivering messages challenge conventional wisdom, For example, in e-mail has changed communication within organizations and even across many organizations, changing the national boundaries. Meetings take place in a variety of virtual or digital formats, nature of the interaction but providing benefits in cost and convenience, Communication scholars and practitioners historically have considered face-to-face sunication the most direct, powerful, and preferred method for exchanging interpersonal commt involves information. In contrast with mass communication, interpersonal communication i as few as two communicators (typically in close proximity), uses many senses, and provides immediate feedback. This description of the interpersonal communication situation, how- ‘ever, does not take into account the possibility that mass media messages may be directed to only a few in a very specific public. Likewise, physical proximity can be less important than the nature of the relationship between communicators, what one scholar calls the “intimacy- transcends-distance phenomenon.” What began as impersonal communication when people initially exchanged messages can become intespersonal communication as the communicators develop a relationship.’ Extending time and distance, however, often requires using message delivery systems other than in-person presentations. In much of contemporary society, face-to-face contacts giv ‘way to mediated transmissions. Spoken words give way to written communication. Individually addressed letters give way to targeted publications. Printed publications give way to broadcast words and pictures, Broadcast messages give way to networks of computers carrying digital signals translated into all manner of information. Emails give way to text messages, available anytime and anyplace simply by accessing a mobile device. Choosing the right medium (sing lar) or media (plural) requires an understanding of media and media effects. teu wid vuurChapter + Communteation Theories and Contexts 174 Receivers Communication movtels—and able aeatons prog auuicnce to be passive vetpients at the end ote cosines ee Anh {erga erence and esas referees voy” suggest a 1 carly mass connimunteation stu walosrable to messages ad med ded an isolate fron the ns—often mistakenly consider the age transmission process, This tradition ion studies, however, mass soclety audiences were viewed as in manipulated by those In control. Critles saw people as allen- es ae dana the Kind of strong soctal and psychological forces found in traditional + AS A Consequence of industriallzation, urbanization, and modernization. However, the evidence gathered on audience effects suggests n more active receiver, The Yale persuasion experiments demonstrated that recetyers are not uniformly influenced by messages designed to change attitudes, For example, receivers who value group membership are relatively unaffected by messages espousing positions counter to those of the group, ‘Those who are persistently aggressive toward others endl to be resistant to persuasive messages, On the other hand, receiv- crs with low self-esteem and feelings of social inadequacy are influenced more by persuasive messages than are people with high self-esteem and feclings of indifference toward others." These differences in impact place a great responsibility on the communicator to target messages tospecitic and well-defined publics, In short, the notion of a monolithic and passive mass audience does not describe reality. more accurate description suggests selected active receivers processing messages designed for the few, not the masses: Since audiences are known (o be evasive at best and recalcitrant at worst, efforts are directed at targeting messages for different audience segments and promoting audience involvement wherever possible.!? Relationship Contexts Communication occurs within the context of the communicators’ relationships. The range of j such relationships includes close and intimate relationships, as well as formal, competitive, and conflictual interpersonal relationships in a variety of settings. The point, of course, is that the relationships themselves affect much about the communication process, All relational communication reflects four basic dimensions: (1) emotional arousal, com- posure, and formality; (2) intimacy and similarity; (3) immediacy or liking; and (4) dominance- submis 4 For example, a supervisor announces changes in work schedules for student assistants without consulting with the students (the first dimension just listed) by posting the new schedule on the office bulletin board (the second dimension). ‘The notice also expresses the supervisor's hope that the new schedule does not inconvenience any of the assistants (the third dimension) but indicates that the supervisor has the power to establish work schedules (the fourth dimension), Not surprisingly, nonverbal behaviors play important roles in relational communica- tion, Proximity communicates intimacy, attraction, (rust, caring, dominance, persuasiveness, and aggressiveness, Smiling communicates emotional arousal, composure, formality, intimacy, and liking, Touching suggests intimacy. Eye contact Intensifies the other nonverbal behav- {ors.'5 Obviously, these interpretations of nonverbal behaviors do not take into account cultural differences. For example, in Navajo and some Asian cultures, eye contact can be interpreted as a sign of disrespect or challenge. In some cultures, touching in public is taboo, Whether verbal or nonverbal, communication in relationships helps the parties make predictions about others in the relationship, Communication reduces uncertainty about the probable ‘outcomes of future exchanges and provides a basis for the continuing relationship. Understanding the communication process, however, requires an understanding of not only the relationship between the communicators, but also the larger social context within which communication occurs. Scanned with_ OR 172. Part Il + Foundations Social Environment {fected by the social setting, ‘Thus, communication occurs as ' of related components and activities. Social system, collectivites that are at the same time Communication affects and is a siructured process within evolving syste clude families, groups, organizations, and all kinds of both producers and products of communication. | Tor example, when people think they can achleve something through joint action that they cannot aceomplish individually, they form groups. Communication in groups depends on the nature ofthe group (primary vs. secondary, formal vs, informal task-oriented vs. experlential), character. -s of group members, group size, group structure, group cohesiveness, and group purpose." Successful group decision making requires accomplishing four tasks: (1) developing an ofthe problem, (2) developing a shared and complete under. ria for success, (3) agreeing on the positive outcomes of decisions, f decisions, Decision-making effectiveness, therefore, ication helps achieve these group functions,"? Organizations impose additional layers of complexity: and constraints on communication, Forces at play in the larger society affect how all communicators—individuals, groups, and orgs. nizations--approach their publics shape the content of their messages, define communication goals, and condition audience responses, Recall our ongoing connection to systems theory: Al tlements ofa system are interdependent and mutually influenced by forces in thelr environment, In short, communication—when it occurs—results from a complex reciprocal process in which communicators try to inform, persuade, or negotiate within the contexts of their relationships and the larger social setting. adequate and accurate assessme standing ofthe goal and the and (4) agreeing on the negative outcomes o depends on the extent to which members’ commun MASS COMMUNICATION EFFECTS Communication effects have long been the object of concern and study. The range of effects runs the gamut from early concerns about “all-powerful” media to “no effects.” Hypothesized unlim- ited effects of movies on helpless children motivated the Payne Fund studies of the 1920s. Maybe critics simply feared too much. After ambitious public persuasion and political campaigns in the 19408 and 1950s produced disappointing results, many concluded that mass communication had almost no impact. Maybe the campaign planners simply asked too much of mass communica- tion, More recent evidence supports theories in whtich mass communication effects occur under specified conditions. Apparently, the answer depends on what question you ask. Creating Perceptions of the World Around Us Early theorists cast mass communication’s role as telling about events, things, people, and places that could not be directly experienced by most. Walter Lippmann said it best when he wrote about “the world outside and the pictures in our heads.” He described a “triangular relationship” between the scene of action (interpreted to include people, places, actions, and the entire range of possible phenomena), perceptions ofthat scene, and responses based on the perceptions, The last side ofthe triangle is complete when the responses have an impact on the original scene of action. Mass media fit in the model between the scene of action and audience perceptions (see Figure 8.2) Lippmann pointed out that most of us cannot or do not have direct access to much ofthe ‘worlds itis “out of reach, out of sight, out of mind,” The mass media help us createaa “trustworthy picture” of the world that is beyond our reach and direct experience. His notions of media impact on public perceptions not only set the stage for studying mass communication effects but also arguably established the conceptual basis for much of what later became public relations Communication scholar George Gerbner followed up on Lippman’s work. His studies of television viewing led to what he called “cultivation theory"—the homogenizing effect of creat- ing a shared culture.!? For example, those who watch a great deal of television have a different picture of the world—social reality—than do those who do not watch much television. Heavy 18 re vient vueurrene << 8 + Communication Theories and Contexts 173 Porceptions of hae the action ‘Scene of the action Response based con the perceptions FIGURE 8.2. Mass Media in Public Opi Formation viewers see the world as portrayed on television, not as it really is. The most dramatic example of the effect is referred to as the “mean world syndrome,” meaning that heavy television viewers see the world as more dangerous and less trustworthy—and view it more pessimistically—than do light viewers. Maybe the most dramatic of the cultivation theory studies was the finding that senior citizens who watch a great deal of television see the world outside their homes as too dan- gerous to venture into, even though reality has little relationship to the levels of muggings, purse snatchings, robberies, murders, and so on portrayed on television, In sum, the findings show that the effect of television viewing is less one of individual impact than itis ofa collective impact on culture and people’s views of the world around them.” Setting and Building the Agenda ‘The “agenda-setting” theory of mass communication effects also builds on Lippmann’s notion : of media impact by distinguishing between what we think about and what we think. The differ- ence is that the former includes what we know about (cognition), whereas the latter refers to our opinions and feelings (predisposition). Early agenda-setting theory suggested that mass media can have a substantial and important impact on the cognitive level without affecting predisposition, although more recent research shows that media affect predispositions as well?" For example, early explorations of agenda setting by the press during presidential elections found that relative media emphasis on issues has a cumulative effect on the electorate. The same issues, with the same relative emphasis as that given by the media, make up the voters’ agenda. In other words, the issues considered least to most important by voters reflect patterns of media coverage rather than a particular political agenda, Furthermore, the relative number of people concerned about issues parallels the relative media emphasis of those issues. Media and public agendas were most similar during the early stages of the campaign and for those issues least likely to be within people’s direct experience.’” McCombs elaborated on how the process works: ‘The agenda-setting influence of the press results in large measure from the repetition of, the major issues in the news day after day. The public learns about the issues on the press agenda with litte effort on their part, and considering the incidental nature of this learning, issues move rather quickly from the press agenda to the public agenda.” Imagine the potential consequences of media agenda setting, First ofall, media coverage can elevate the public standing of issues, people, organizations, institutions, and so forth. Second, changes in the amount of media attention can lead to changes in public priorities. Third, the more concerned people are about something, the more they tend to learn about it, the stronger their opinions are of it, and the more they tend to take action on it. (Notice, however, that the scanned witnoN 174 Part ll » Foundations agenda-setting theory does not predict what information they will seek, which way their opi, ions will change, or what types of actions they will take.) Fourth, media coverage can affect hy agenda priorities of some specific and important publics, such as legislators, regulators, an oth policy makers. In summary, mass communeation can affect public opinion by raising the salience gp issues and positions taken by people and groups in the news.” Furthermore, like Lippmann’, theory of media effects, the agenda-setting theory contributes to the conceptual foundation op public relations mass communication, For public relations practitioners, getting an issue onto the media agenda can be a goog thing (ie. when you want to raise awareness of an issue) or a bad thing (e.g. when something embarrassing, dangerous, or illegal happens at your organization). Being aware of the power of media agenda setting is a Key to the strategic management of public relations communication, Public relations can contribute tremendously to the effectiveness of the organization when i, carefully and strategically considers its own issues in regard to the media agenda. Often, public relations saves an organization money and resources by resolving a problem before it gets ontg the media agenda, In other instances, getting an issue onto the media agenda is a crucial part of press agentry and a valuable method of creating symmetrical dialogue on an issue. ‘Two concepts in agenda-setting theory and research are especially useful in public relations 1, Issue salience determines the prominence and penetration the issue has with the audience, or how well it resonates with each public, People care the most about issues that are close to their own interests. Researchers found that frequency of discussion was the single largest predictor of issue salience. Interpersonal communication enhanced the agenda-setting effect of the media or interfered with the agenda-setting effect when the interpersonal discussion conflicted with media content.”> 2. Cognitive priming describes the personal experience or connection someone has with an issue, Researchers thought that a person with little or no personal experience on an issue must rely on the media for information. Scholars initially expected to find that the media had weak or no agenda-setting effects on issues with which people had personal experience ‘To the contrary, they found support for the cognitive priming hypothesis, which states that previous or personal exposure to an issue stimulates interest in that issue’s media coverage, thus enhancing the agenda-setting effects.” In recent years, researchers McCombs and Shaw have reformulated and expanded agenda- setting theory: “Media not only tellus what to think about, but how to think about it, and, consequently, what to think.””” In other words, media affect both cognitions and predisposi- tions, a phenomenon researchers call “second-level agenda-setting,”** This enhanced theory of mediated, powerful effects provides a promising theoretical framework for application in the practice of public relations. In particular, one aspect of second-level agenda-setting theory that has generated much scholarly research in public relations isthe idea of agenda building, Agenda-building theory res to answer the question of who is building the agenda of the media, This is an important ques- tion, If the media set the public agenda, then the public should know who is building the media agenda, So far, research has shown that typical builders of the media's agenda include politicians and elected officials, as well as—yes—the public relations practitioners who work for them” Diffusing Information and Innovation Beyond setting the issues agenda, mass communication also facilitates social interaction and change. Sources may come from different social, economic, and educational backgrounds but are accessible through the media, The media, then, provide information from sources that would otherwise not be available through interpersonal networks in which “like talks to like.” Once people get information from the media, however, they enter conversations armed with usefil we wictl vueur| Chapter 8 + Communication Theories and Contexts 175 new information, What we learn from the mass media often determines what we talk about with others, providing the common ground needed to begin conversation: “Did you see in this morn. ing’s paper that...2” or “Can you believe Jay Leno has already announced his retirement?” In effect, mass media provide information to those who seck it and supply information needed for subsequent interpersonal communication, thereby diffusing information to others>° Diffusion of information and innovation theory explains this process. Characteristics of innovation—or new ideas—as well as characteristics of the adopters influence the adop. tion process. Ideas or innovations are more readily adopted if they are (1) more advantageous than the current situation, (2) compatible with previous experience and other aspects of the situation, (3) simple, (4) easily tried, and (5) observable with readily apparent outcomes. As shown in Figure 8.3, “innovators” are the first to adopt new ideas, followed by “carly adapters,” “early majority,” “late majority,” and “laggards.” Characteristics of the individuals in each of the categories vary with the nature of change being adopted and the context! Early diffusion of innovation studies identified opinion leaders as key components of gaining acceptance of new ideas and practices. In effect, these people tend to get their informa- tion from media sources and then become themselves the source to others in their network 22 Researchers identified leaders who had influence on a specific issue, while others wielded influ- ence over a range of issues, The two-step flow model has given way to the multistep flow model, in which there may be many different steps and actors in decisions to adopt an innovation or idea.” Whatever the number of steps or links in the network, itis safe to conclude that people are important in the process of diffusion of innovation: Interpersonal influence is very important in this process. People raise awareness of the innovation as they talk with one another about it. They share opinions, discuss their expe- rience with the innovation, sometimes advocate its use, and sometimes resist it.* Diffusion and adoption processes illustrate the impact that mass communication has on interpersonal communication and networks. More important, they show how mass and interper- sonal communication interact in social systems and in social change. 100 { Lagoa eo. Tate 5 Majorty 2 co zg Early i Matorty % 40 Z é Early & Adopters 20 Innovators Time ——> FIGURE 8.3 Diffusion of Innovation Curve Source: Adapted from Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of ‘Innovations, Sth ed. (New York: Free Press, 2003), 11 a Scanned with176 Part Il + Fe yundations Defining Social Support “‘hesetg “Spiral of silence” theory suggests a phenomenon commonly refered i seth ent jy nd i with the opinions nd ty Individuals who think their opinion conflicts with 0 sdividually recognize social support, their silence and inactivity can lead to the erroneous con, lusion that not many people support a particular view. On the other hand, individuals why that the number of people who agree is growin, think that many others share their view or f i rapidly are snore likely to express their views. Under these conditions, a vocal minority that sexs itself on the winning side can appear to represent a widely shared perspective In aie case, as, Lippmann pointed out more than 50 years before the spiral of silence 1 ony PROPS “epond as powerfilly to fictions as they do to realities, and ... in many cases they help to create the very fictions to which they respond.”*> | In essence, public opinion arises as individuals collectively discern support for their views through personal interaction and by attending to the mass media. Individuals observe and assess their social environments, estimating the distributions of opinions, evaluating the strength and chances of success for each, and determining the social sanctions and costs associ. ated with each. The spiral begins when individuals choose to remain silent or decide to express their views, It continues as others observe the presence or absence of support for their own views, It gains apparent legitimacy when increasing numbers of individuals translate their observations into either public silence or expression, It is reinforced when the media cover the views being displayed most forcefully and most frequently and do not make an effort to determine the actual distribution of views. Media coverage can reflect, enforce, or challenge the spiral of silence effect on public opinion, But understanding the dynamics of individuals’ collective observations of their social environments and public opinion translates rather directly into public relations practice Examples include public information campaigns designed to break the spirals of silence associ- ated with domestic violence, sexual harassment, and stalking, to list only a few. In each instance, and for many other public issues, mass communication plays a key role in redefining socially accepted expression and behavior. Asillustrated in Figure 8.4, mass media messages can provide individuals pictures of their social environment, of whether there is social approval or disapproval of their views or actions. ‘This “sociocultural model” of communication effects suggests that “messages presented via the mass media may provide the appearance of consensus regarding orientation and action with respect to a given object or goal of persuasion.”°° To sum up, the late communication scholar Everett Rogers concluded: “... [T]he media can have strong effects, especially when the media messages stimulate interpersonal communication about a topic through intermedia processes,”>” Denes Fons oars oruasive (rrestnes) Gcatrfons of panne pene sociocultural >| socially approved |——>} Girecton of prove of terevor en pun) group members Ls FIGURE 8.4 Sociocultural Model of Persuasion Source: Melvin L. DeFleur and Sandra J, Ball-Rokeach, Theories of Mass Communication, ath ed. (New York: Longman, 1982), 225. yeu wirChapter 8 + Cos munication Theoties and Contexts 177 PUBLIC OPINION CONTEXTS ‘the force of public opinion has steadily g ned strength around the wor wit advent of new media technologies. Goverents and isttutonsfonmery ee ee from the glare of media attention and public scrutiny now see their ae specs via international news media, For example, international pressure against varlows acon the Middle East increased during the “Arab Spring” of 2011, when teens weet document government repression of protestors seeking democratic reforms, Nineteenth-century writer and first editor of The Atlantic Monthly James Russell Lowell said, “The pressure of public opinion is like the atmosphere; you can’t see it--but all the seme itis sisteen pounds to the square inch.” Lowell’s words have even more relevance now. Public opinion has never been more powerful, more fragmented, more volatile and more exploited and manipulated, For example, researchers studying US. presidential campaign coverage found ample evidence of “a powerful relationship between news media coverage and public opinion in presidential elections.” ions or inaction reported Public opinion polls have long guided politics, government programs, entertainment programming, and even corporate decision making. In short, much as Lowell suggested, public opinion is an always present, dynamic force. It is part of public relations’ mission to help organi zations recognize, understand, and deal with this powerful influence in their environments. This isnot an easy task, however, As the former vice president of AT&T said: Public opinion is not necessarily logical; it is amorphous, ambivalent, contradictory, volatile. Consequently, those of us who would hope to influence public opinion can only expect that our efforts, over time, may nudge the consensus toward some reasonable perception of the issues.” Organizations of all types must deal with real and perceived public opinion as they estab- lish and maintain relationships with their many internal and external publics. But organizations are the actors: public opinion is simply the “energizer” of their actions. (Public opinion) is .. .n expression of social energy that integrates individual actors into social groupings in ways that affect the polity. This understanding takes the concept of public opinion out of metaphysics and ... avoids reducing it to a set of discrete individualized observations that cannot account for its composite sociopoliti- cal significance.” ‘The common notion of public opinion holds that itis simply the aggregation of individual views ‘on some issue. This “individual agreement” approach to defining public opinion, however, misses the point that itis public. Individual cognition may or may not represent the consensus, or “thinking together,” that more fully represents the kinds of opinions that form and are formed by public discussion among those sharing a “sense of commonness.” ; ‘Thus, public opinion represents more than the collected views held by a particular cat- egory of individuals at one point in time, Public opinion is not adequately defined as simply a state of individual cognition. Instead, it reflects a dynamic process in which ideas are “expressed, adjusted, and compromised en route to collective determination of a course of action." Public opinion is found among publics, or groups of communicating people who have some common interest, People collectively hold a view of an issue, why it is a cause for concern, and what ean or should be done in the situation. In short, public opinion is the social process of forming, ‘expressing, and adjusting ideas that affect collective behavior in situations. The process is, unquestionably, ongoing. Scanned withVB Part © Foundations ensions of Public Opinion In practice, however, both researchers and public relations practitioners take “snapshots of public opinion, essentially freezing the process at one point in time so as to describe it ang compare it with opinion at other times, Their surveys too often measure only direction ang nsity ignoring three other important dimensions: 1, Direction of opinion indicates the evaluative quality of a predisposition, telling us the “positive-negative-neutral,” “for-against-undecided,” or “pro-con-it-depends” evaluation of publics, In its simplest form, direction is a yes-no answer to a survey question, Media frequently report public opinion survey results as simply the percentages for or against some issue, proposition, or candidate. For example, stories reporting poll results, popular. ity, margin, and other indicators of the direction of public opinion about the candidates tend to dominate coverage in U.S, presidential campaigns, comprising 38 percent of al stories,"? (Character stories are second at 18 percent.) Direction clearly represents the most basic and most frequently used measure of public opinion. Intensity measures show how strongly people feel about their opinions, whatever the direction. For example, pollsters ask registered voters to indicate “on a scale of 1 to 10” how strongly they felt about a wide range of issues related to the election. Likewise, surveys often ask respondents to indicate whether they “strongly disagree/disagree/neutral/agree/ strongly agree” with a statement. This question format is a common means of measur- ing both direction and intensity of feelings. Intensity measures provide an initial estimate of the relative strength of predisposition. Intensity and direction are often reported to indicate not only how people feel about issues, but also how deeply they hold the feelings. For instance, the issue of abortion commonly polarizes publics based on the intensity of their beliefs. 3, Stability refers to how long respondents have held or will hold the same direction and intensity of feelings. Measures of stability require observations taken at two or more points in time, Think of this dimension as something like the charts that track stock prices or temperature patterns over time, In effect, the stability measure provides evidence of how reactive public opinion is to events or other information. Informational support refers to how much knowledge people hold about the object of their opinion. For example, voters who have little information about candidates tend to focus on who they see as being involved or associated with a candidate and how they think the candidate would affect them personally. Better-informed voters, in contrast, “are more likely to ignore consideration of the specific groups involved in favor of a more general interpretation of the issue." Other researchers studying a mayoral election found that those more informed about issues hold stronger opinions about the issues, but the direction of the opinions is not easily predicted, Furthermore, those with more knowledge and strong opinions are more likely to vote and to contact local officials.“ Absence of “information mass” behind an opinion on relatively nonpartisan issues may indicate that the direction and intensity are susceptible to change. For example, if Monsanto finds that public opinion against field testing of genetically engineered plants is not well informed, the company could mount a public information campaign designed to educate community members about the risks and benefits involved, taking care to frame the messages in the context of who is affected and involved (including the consensus views of community leaders), as well as how the field tests will affect those in the community— potential risks (if any) and benefits. 5. Social support measures provide evidence of the extent to which people think their opinions are shared by others in their social milieu, The persuasion model in Figure 84 indicates the power of perceptions of social approval or disapproval. Pollsters probing this dimension of public opinion ask respondents to report their impressions of what = rou wort yvueurChapter 8 + Communication Theories and Contexts 179 significant others think about an issue or to estimate the distribution of public opinion on the issue under sttidy. In effect, measures of social support show how people define the nature of the consensus on issues, The social context of opinion may be simply the tendency to think that other people are more influenced by media or events than ourselves. Researchers have found “third- person effects” whereby people tend to underestimate media impact on themselves and overestimate impact on others, Such effects could have consequences in how public policy is determined (protecting those perceived to be vulnerable others), oF how political campaigns are conducted (influencing easily persuaded voters), Researcher Richard Perloff discussed the implications of the third-person effect: Social life is strengthened when individuals recognize that their perceptions of other people are not always accurate and that their fellow citizens are more capable of separating out the political wheat from the chaff than they typically assume, Ina fragmented era, itis particularly important to reduce people's inclination to psychologically separate themselves from others and to encourage individuals to view others and the self through the same sets of lenses. ‘Think of both informational and social support as giving predisposition weight and inertia, 1f for example, people with a strong opinion on an issue hold a lot of information—pro and con— about that issue and see their particular position as being widely shazed, then the direction and expression of the opinion are not likely to change. Just as the direction of a bowling ball é litte affected by the air movement created by an air conditioner, opinions with much informational and social support have great mass and are not susceptible to easy or quick change, On the other hand, even strongly held opinions can change if they are not backed by information and perceived social support. They can change direction as frequently and rapidly as a ping-pong ballin a hurricane, Describing and understanding public opinion requires greater measurement sensitivity and depth than the simple yes-no questions often used in telephone polling. Chapter 11 offers ‘more information on how to conduct public opinion polling and other research. Chapter 12 explains how public opinion contexts are important for identifying, segmenting, and target- ing specific organizational publics. For now, remember that public opinion reflects a dynamic q process of interpersonal and media communication on issues among groups of people who have the capacity to act in similar ways. “Thinking together” often leads to “acting together,” the real reason for understanding public opinion. ORIENTATION AND COORIENTATION Public opinion, by definition, is about opinions that are shared—or perceived to be shared— among individuals, each of whom may have an individual opinion regarding a specific issue. The realization, rightly or wrongly, that an individual's views of a situation are similar to those held by others evokes a sense of identification among individuals and the perception of a common interest. In other words, individual orientation includes perceptions of issues or objects in one’s environment, as well as perceptions of significant others’ views of those same issues or objects, ‘When two of more individuals’ orientations include the same issues or objects and each other, they are in a state of coorientation. Orientation In duals hold opinions of varying degrees of relevance and intensity. Individuals assign value to objects in their environments on the basis of both their previous history with the objects and their assessment of the objects inthe current context (see Figure 8.5). The former value i salfence, or the feelings about an object derived from an individual's experiences and reinforcements from Previous situations, Saience refers to what the individual brings to a situation as a result of history. Ee Scanned with180 Part Il + Foundations Pertinence 1 ‘Attibute A~| Attribute B Pertinence 2 FIGURE 8.5 Model of individual Orientation alue of an object found which refers to the relative v% basis of some attribute or attributes. Pertinence ‘on o what other objects The second source of value is pertinence, by making object-by-object comparisons on the ¢ value can vary depending on which attribute s used to make the compari are used in the comparison. In other words, s of the situation, whereas pertinence dep describe and understand an individual's opi both salience and pertinence. The distinction opinions. "An attitude is the cross-situational predisposition or preference with respect to an object or issue, Attitudes predispose individuals to respond in certain ways from one situation to ‘another, based on a lifetime of accumulating and evaluating information and experiences. Crespi Substitutes “attitudinal system” when referring to what others call “attitude,” He defines attitude systems as comprising four components: nce indicates how individuals feel about an object, independent ‘ends on how the individual defines the situation. To nion about some object, then, you have to measure helps clarify the relationship between attitudes and 1, Evaluative frames of reference (values and interests) 2. Cognition (knowledge and beliefs) 3, Affection (feelings) (Because many use the term “attitude” as referring only or primarily to the affective mode, whereas others use “attitude” more generally, an added benefit of adopting this nomenclature is that it avoids confusing the affective response mode with the entire system.) 4, Conation (behavioral intentions)” On the other hand, an opinion is the judgment expressed about an object in a particular situation or given a specific set of circumstances. Opinions tend to reflect an individual's related attitudes but also take into account aspects of the current situation, Scholars have generally distinguished between attitudes and opi ns in two ways: First, opinions are generally considered to be verbal, or otherwise overt responses toa specific stimulus (an issue), while attitudes are more basic global tendencies to respond favorably or unfavorably to a general class of stimuli, While opinions are largely situa- ional, aitudes are more enduring wil a person across stuatlons, Second opinions art considered tobe more cognitive and somewhat les affective in their makeup. An al tude isan immediate, intuitive orientation while an opinion is a thought-out, reasoned choice between alternatives for action in a social matrix. 48 erent veuniee wierdChapter # + Communication Theories and Contexts 181 ‘The notion that opinions are expressed makes them important to the formation and study of public opinion, On the other hand, unexpressed intrapersonal predisposition does not affect public opinion formation, Not until attitudes are expressed through opinions in discussion or ther public communication do they have an impact on the processes of forming and chang- ing public opinion, That opinions are public expressions establishes public opinion as a social phenomenon, Coorientation ‘The social or interpersonal concept of public opinion requires two or more individuals oriented to and communicating about an object of mutual interest. In other words, they are “cooriented” to something in common and to each other. The coorientational model in Figure 8.6 illustrates the intrapersonal and interpersonal elements of communication relationships.” First, the intrapersonal construct of congruency describes the extent to which your own views match your estimate of another's views on the same issue. Some refer to this variable as “perceived agreement.” On the basis of this estimate, you formulate strategies for dealing with the other person or for spontaneously responding in interactions, ‘The extent to which you accurately estimate another's views determines the appropriate- ness of your actions. Each of us recalls instances in which we misjudged another person's position fon some issue of mutual interest and responded to them inappropriately until we learned what the person really thought about the issue. Accuracy, then, represents the extent to which your estimate matches the other person's actual views. Because it requires a comparison of observa- tions taken from two different people, accuracy represents an interpersonal construct. ‘The other interpersonal constructs include agreement and understanding. Agreement represents the extent to which two or more persons share similar evaluations of an issue of ‘mutual interest. Understanding measures the similarities in the definitions held by two or more in Person A Person 8 AB Agreement 1s cognitions 28 coontons ‘about X ‘AB Understanding ‘about X ongruency A oo A B t ‘Accuracy | t Perception of B's cognitions Perception of | A's cognitions FIGURE 8.6 Model of Coorientation Source: Adapted from Jack M. McLeod and Steven H. Chafee, "interpersonal Approaches to Communication Research," in interpersonal Perception and Communication, ed. Steven H. Chaffee and Jack M. McLeod, special edition of American Behavioral Scientist, 16, no. 4 (March-April 1973), 483-488, Wi Scanned witham, agreement compares salience persons, In terms used in the individual orientation paradigm, ag} %, Whereas understanding compares perlinences. Coorientational Consensus By including many individuals simultaneously oriented to iss the interpersonal coorientational mode! is extended to large concept of public opinion in communities and society prov! chological approachesto describing tales Of OMENS sav agreement Fist, the coorientational approach doesnot use the tatiana TE Tet ent approach to describing public opinion, that is, an aggregation of MeTNE NS OTA ofboth sue of topic, Instead, the coorientational approach casts public apinion ™ 1 Miva i ndividual perceptions on an issue and their perceptions of what signi Nut the same issue. " Social scientists long ago recognized the need to take into account Pere kd ar in addition to actual agreement. Scheff, for one, argued that perceptions o! es aaa a , e independent of actual agreement and that perceptions of agreement more as ect Public behavior than does actual agreement. In fact, it is often the case that those late Sues of public debate do not know the state of actual agreement, operating instead on their perceptions of agreement,*? | Conceiving public opinion—or consensus—in this way makes it a nom: enon that can be described using coorientational concepts. For example, the state of monolithic consensus represents high levels of actual agreement accurately recognized as such by those involved, Dissensus exists when high levels of actual disagreement are accurately perceived as such (see Table 8.1) Public opinion based on inaccurate perceptions of agreement is more troublesome in relationships. Unlike actual agreement or disagreement, however, inaccurate perceptions are at least subject to change as a result of effective communication. For example, after extended interaction, two or more persons may simply agree to disagree. At least they each know where the other stands on the issue, The same cannot be said about situations based on inaccurate perceptions of each other's views. False consensus exists when there is actual disagreement but the majority of those involved think they agree. Pluralistic ignorance represents the state of public opinion in which a major- ity perceive little agreement, but in fact there is widespread agreement. When those involved do not accurately recognize the state of actual agreement, they act on the basis of their inaccurate perceptions. In the cases of false consensus and pluralistic ignorance, their responses and public expressions (ie, public opinion) are not consistent with the actual distribution of individual orientations on issues of common interest. Accurate perceptions of others’ views, however, are surely the most likely outcome of public communication and the greatest motivation for main- taining communication in society and in relationships, ues of mutual concern and interes, social groupings. A coorientationa| jides an alternative to the usual psy, complex social phenom. 7 [J Tatite 8.1 types of Coorientational Consensus ] Perceives that Majority _Perceives that Majority Also Agrees on Issue Does Not Agree on Issue Majority actually Monolithic Consensus Pluralistic Ignorance agrees on issue Majority does not False Consensus Dissensus agree on issue eee ‘Source: Adapted from Thomas J. Scheff, "Toward a Sociological Model of Consensus? American Sociological Review 32, no. 1 (February 1967), 39 yvuur 1eu vwoiurtChapter'8 + Communication Theories and Contexts 183 What may appear as logical in the context of this discussion, however, apparently is not widely recognized by those who commission or practice public relations. Instead of trying to jncrease the accuracy of cross-petceptions in social relationships, most communication efforts attempt to influence levels of agreement or to “engineer consent.” But actual agreement can exist independent of perceptions of agreement, leading to Scheffs more useful definition of coorien- tational public opinion: ‘Complete consensus on an issue exists in a group [read: “public”] when there is an infinite series of reciprocating understandings between the members of the group (read: “public” concerning the issue. I know that you know that I know, and so on.”! (Words in brackets added.) In the context of public relations, the coorientational approach to consensus and relation- ships is also useful for describing the nature of organization-public relationships. Coorientational Relationships ‘The coorientational approach helps identify three public relations problems that call for rather straightforward communication strategies: 1. An organization and a public hold different definitions of an issue. They simply are not talking about the same thing when they engage in communication about “the issue.” They are talking about different issues, 2. The organization’s perceptions of a public’s views of an issue (evaluations and/or defini- tions) do not match the public’s actual views. Organizational management makes decisions about a public based on inaccurate estimates of the public’ views. Not surprisingly, the relationship suffers when members ofthat public are subjected to the organization's actions and communications. 3. Members ofa public hold inaccurate perceptions of an organization’s positions on an issue of mutual concern, Public responses to the organization's management, its products, its actions and procedures, and so forth are based on inaccurate estimates of management policy and values. Note that in all cases, the nature of the organization-public relationship is threatened by differing definitions and inaccurate perceptions, not by disagreement over the issue itself, None of the situations calls for communication designed to change the level of agreement- disagreement on the issue. Communication that helps create shared definitions and increase accuracy improves the relationship and makes each side’s dealings with the other more appro- priate (See Figure 8.7). For example, even though the Army Corps of Engineers communicated the advantages of a proposed flood-control project to the various publics who would be affected, they apparently did not do the same for the project's disadvantages. Convinced that the various publics supported the project, the Corps scheduled what was to be the final public hearing for project approval, Project planners were surprised by the suspicions, concerns, objections, and uncertainties expressed at the hearing. The project was delayed for the additional meetings and negotiations needed to improve accuracy in both the Corps’s and publics’ perceptions of the project and one another's views. Had the Corps initially used the coorientational approach to assess public opinion of the project, they might have identified their relationship problems and taken steps to avoid the costly delays, As this example illustrates, the coorientational approach serves three major purposes in public relations planning. First, coorientational measures provide the information needed to identify and describe problems in organization-public relationships. Rather than defining Problems in ways that limit strategies to those designed to increase agreement by changing Scanned with184 Part I + Foundations Issue Public Organization Agreoment Organization's Public} ion j¢——__________»| Wows of eave Understanding ons of sue Ral ai Organization's Public's 7 | Organization's Accuracy Accuracy Public's estimate | estimate of public's of organization's | views of issue views of issue | a FIGURE 8.7 Coorientational Model of Organization-Public Relationships public perceptions, this approach calls for an assessment of all parties’ views in order to understand relationships. Second, coorientational measures provide useful guidance for planning appropriate messages and responses to correct organization-public relationship problems, Coorientational assessments of relationships can lead to atypical, yet efficient, solutions. For example, imagine that the analysis shows that management has an inaccurate perception of a public’s views on an issue and asa result is proposing what will be an inappropriate action or response. Simply reporting the public's actual views on the issue to management may be the only corrective action needed. Third, repeated use of coorientational measures indicates how the relationship changes as a result of the communication and other corrective actions, In other words, agreement, understanding, congruency, and accuracy serve as outcome criteria for assessing the impact of public relations efforts on organization-public relationships.°> In conclusion, public relations establishes and maintains relationships between organiza- tions and their publics by—among other means—facilitating two-way communication. The com- munication, however, may have less impact on the extent to which parties agree or disagree than on the accuracy of their cross-perceptions of each other’s views. In the final analysis, Lippmann's “pictures in our heads” of the “world outside” include our estimates of what others think, These perceptions of social reality lead to the formation of active publics and condition actions toward others, both other individuals and other organizations. Researchers studying how people interact with their computer, television, and new media arrived at the same conclusion: “What seems to be true is often more influential than what really is true... Perceptions are far more influential than reality defined more objectively.” As Lippmann said, “That is why until we know what others think they know, we cannot truly understand their acts.”°5 Communication, then, not only moves information from one party in a relationship to another, but also defines the relationships and social environment within which all people func- tion: as students, citizens, employees, managers, and policy makers. Not surprisingly, the media of communication—the topic of the next two chapters—play essential roles in shaping both issues and their social contexts, Mass media make possible the thinking together that shapes and represents the states of consensus in complex organizations, in communities, and in the larger global society. rou wre - vueurNotes L 2 10, u 2, B, 44 Wilbur Frederick Willlamss The New Communications, ded ed, {Helm CAs Wadsworth, 1993), 9, “Quoting Quotes.” https//quotingauotes.com/t 10602/ (accessed March 5, 2012), Hughes servedl ae th gov. ernor of New York (1907-1910); Assoclate fuatleey Us Supreme Court (1910-1916); and Ath S (1921-1925), Paul P. Lavarsfek, Hernan Merelson, and! Hazel Gave, The Peuple’s Cholee: How the Voter Makes Up Hts Mind in a Presidential Campaign, Srl ed, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968), 151, Warten Weaver, “the Mathemates of Communication” 4m Communication anu Culture: Reading tn the Codes of Human Interaction, ed, Alfred G, Sith (New York: Holl, Rinchar€ and Winston, 1966), 17. Reprinted from Selene American 181 (1949): 11-15, Origa theory published In Claude E, Shannon and Warren Weaver, The Mathematieal Theory af Communication (Urbana: University of tlinals Press, 1949). Iida, 17, lary of State chramm, “the Nature of Communteatlon Between Humans," In The Process and Effects of Muss Communication, rev. ed. ed. Wilbur Schramm and Donald , Roberts (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1971), 17, . Ibid, 38-47, Carl 1, Hovland, Irving 1. Janis, and Harold HH, Kele a Communication and Persuasion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1953). The World War I! “Yale studies” provided the foundation for persuasion theory still used for designing both persuasion effects research and publie communication campaigns Norman H. Anderson, “Integration ‘Theory and Attitude Change," Psychological Review78, no.3 (May 1971): 171-206, Michael Burgoon, "Messages and Persuasive Efects,” In Message Effects in Communication Science: Sage Annual Reviews of Communication Research, 71h ed ed, James J, Bradac (Newbury Park, CA:Sage Publications, 1989), 157, See Gerald R, Miller, “Interpersonal Communteation,” chapter 5 in Hunan Communteatfon: Theory and Research, ed. Gordon L, Dahinke and Glen W, Clatterbuick (Helmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1990), 91-122 for a review of interper- sonal communication, Summary of "Developing Frameworks for Studying Mass Communication,” chapter 1 in Lowery and DeFleur, ‘Milestones in Mass Communication Research, 1-29, Brenda Dervin, “Audience as Listener and Learner, Teacher and Confidante: The Sense-Making Approach,” in Public Communication Campaigns, 2nd ed ed, Ronald Rieeand Charles K. Atkin (Newbury Park, CAs: Sage Publications, 1989), 69, See Chapter 7, “the Relationship,” in Stephen W. 1iltjobn and Karen A. Foss, Theorles of Human Gonmmuntcation, 8ih ed, (Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2005), 15, 16, 21 2, 23, 4, 25, 26, 28, ae CHupter H+ Communication tveurles and Contents 185 1N6-212, for detailed (Hon relat ship, thd, Mavis Slaw and De iroup Dynaintes id Communication,” in Human’ Gommunteattion: Theory and Resear ed, Condon le Dalinke and Glew V0, Clattetlsuck (eluant, CAs Wadyynatly, 19), 123-155, andy Ys Mrakawa, “Croup Communte ion andl Declan Making Perforinance: A Continued ‘feat of the Function spective," ° Hunan Communication Research Ay (Summer 198K): 447-51, Walter Lippmann, “the World Outside and the Pletures In Our Head," chapter 1, Public Opinion (Mew Yorks Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1922), Reprinted in The Process and Hfects of Mass Communication, tev, ey ed, Scliramn and Roberts, 265-246, George Gerbner, “Toward ‘Cultural Indicators: ‘The Analysis of Masy Mediated Message Systems," AV. Gommunteaiton Revtew 17, 0, 2(1970): 137-14, Nancy Signorelli, “Television's Mean and Dangerous World: A Continuation of the Cultural tndieatary Perspective” tn Cultivation Analyst: New Dimensions in Mela lffects Research, ed. Nancy Siynorielle and Michael Morgan (Newbury Park, CA: Saye, 190), #5106, Maxwell I, McCombs and Donald 1. Shaw, “The Agenda- Settlng Function of Mass Media," Publle Opinion Quarterly 36, no, 2 (Summer 1972): 176-187, Fitst of many reports of media agendla-seting effects on a variety of issues in a variety of settings. Maxwell McCombs, Hdna Hinsledel and David Weaver, Contemporary Public Opinion: tssues and the News {ilsdale, NJ Lawrence Eelbaumn Associates, 1991), 12-17, Maxwell MeCombs, "the Agenda-Setting Function of the Press? In The Pres, ed. Geneva Overholser and Kathleen Hall Jamieson (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2005), 159, Ibid 17-21, Wayne Wanta and ¥. C. Wu, “Interpersonal ommunieation and the Agenda-Setting Process,” Journalisen Quarterly 69, no, 4 (1992): 847-H53. David Demers, “Issue Obteusiveness and the Agenda: Setting Effects of National Network News," Communteatton Research 16, 0. 6 (1989): 793-812 ‘Maxwell E, MeCombs and Donald 1, Shaw, "the Evolution of Agenda-Selting Research: ‘Twenty-Five Years in the ‘of Ideas," Journal of Communication 43, no. 2 iscuston af theory shout communica 4 Spiro Kiousis and Michael Mitrook, “First «and Second- vel Agenda-Duilding and Agenda-Setting Effects: Exploring the LUnkages Among Candidate News Releases, Media Coverage, and Public Opinion During the 2002 Morida Gubernatorial Hection,” Journal of Public Relations Research 18, wo, 3 (2006): 265-248, Scanned with186 Parti + Foundations 29, For examples of resear Ki ch or a-building, see Ji Young Kim. Zhene Magee agenda-building, sce Ji Young, nd Spiro Kiousis, “Agenda buildin effects by 2008 presidential eandidates om global media ‘overage and public opinion,” Public Relations Review 37+ Ro. 1 (2011): 109-111; Spiro and Ji Young kim, jousis, Alexander Las and iY ‘Congressional Agenda-Building Examiningthe Influence of Congressional Communications From the Speaker of the House,” Paper presented to the International Communication Association (May 2009), Chicago, IL; Spiro Kiousis and Xu Wy, “International Agenda-Building and Agenda-Setting: Exploring the Influence of Public Relations Counsel on US News Media and Public Perceptions of Foreign Nations,” International Communication Gazette 70, no. 1 (2008): 58-75. Steven H. Chaffee, “The Interpersonal Context of Mass Communication,’ in Current Perspectives in Mass Communication Research, Vol. 1, ed. F. Gerald Kline and Phillip J. Tichenor (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1972), 95-120, Everett M. Rogers, “Communication and Social Change,” in Human Communication, ed. Dahnke and Clatterbuck, 259-271. Elihu Katz, “The Two-Step Flow of Communi Public Opinion Quarterly 21 (1957): 61-78. Everett M. Rogers, Diffusion of novation (New York: Free Press, 1995), 290-304. Stephen W. Litllejohn and Karen A. Foss, Theories of Human Communication, Sth ed. (Belmont, CA: Thomson ‘Wadsworth, 2008), 322. beth Noelle-Neumann, “The Spiral of Silence: A ‘Theory of Public Opinion,” Journal of Communication 24 (97. . Later published in book form, The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion—Our Social Skin (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984). 36. Lippmann, Public Opinion, 14. 37. Everett M, Rogers, “Intermedia Processes and Powerful Media Effects,” in Media Effects, ed. Bryant and Zillmann, 211. 38, Melvin L. DeFleur and Sandra J. Ball-Rokeach, Theories of ‘Mass Communication, 4th ed. (New York: Longman, 1982), 226. 39, Edward M. Block, “How Public Opinion Is Formed,” Public Relations Review 3, no. 3 (Fall 1977): 15. Irving Crespi, The Public Opinion Process: How the People Speak (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997): 10. Vincent Price and Donald F. Roberts, “Public Opinion Processes,” in Handbook of Communication Science, ed Berger and Chaffee, 784. 30. a 32. ion,” 33. Be AL 42. 43. 45. 47. 49. 50, 51. 52, 53, 55. san, Michael Fibison, Dhavan s, Smit ‘kD. Watts, “New pecteven &, Smith, and Mark D. Watt, “Newy Vsti suas and Issues and Public Opinion iy wearsge residential Campaign,” Journalism & Mars Communication Quarterly 74 no. 4 (Winter 1997); 733. Dennis Chong, ‘on Political ee a “Attitude Change, ed, Diana and Richard A Brody (Ann Arbor: 1996), 199. 7 Cee ad ‘David Weaver, “Media Attention, Media Exposure, and Media Effects,” Journalism Quarterly 67, no, inter 1990): 740-748. . oka M eh “The Third-Person Ect in Medi Effects, ed. Bryant and Zillmann, 503. See also Vincent Price, Li-Ning Huang, and David Tewksbury, “Third- Person Effects of News Coverage: Orientations toward Media.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 74, no. 3 (Autumn 1997): 525. ; Concepts and paradigm of individual orientation adapted from Richard F. Carter, “Communication and Affective Relations,” Journalism Quarterly 42, no. 2 (Spring 1965): 203-212. respi, The Public Opinion Process, 19. Price and Roberts, “Public Opinion Processes,” 787. Model and coorientational concepts from Jack M. McLeod and Steven H. Chaffee, “Interpersonal Approaches to Communication Research,” in Interpersonal Perception ‘and Communication, ed. Steven H. Chaffee and Jack M, McLeod, special edition of American Behavioral Scientist 16, no. 4 (March-April 1973): 483-488. ‘Thomas J. Scheff, “Toward a Sociological Model of Consensus,” American Sociological Review 32, no. 1 (February 1967): 32-46. Ibid. 37. Keith R, Stamm and John E. Bowes, “Communicating During an Environmental Decision,” Journal of Environmental Education 3, no. 3 Spring 1972): 49-56. Glen M. Broom, “Coorientational Measurement of Public Issues,” Public Relations Review 3, no. 4 (Winter 1977): 110-119, See also Glen M. Broom and David M. Dozier, Using Research in Public Relations (Englewood Cliffs, NJ Prentice Hall, 1990): 36-39. Byron Reeves and Clifford Nass, The Media Equation (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 253. Lippmann, Public Opinion, 13 David Domke, David P. «creating Common Frames of Reference Chapter 8 in Political Persuasion and ‘C. Mutz, Paul M. Sniderman, University of Mi yuu wirstudy Guide ‘What isthe difference between “communication” and “public relations”? Define each term and explain how they are related. Inthe crowded message environment, what isthe first task of public relations communication? What are elements of the communication model, and how do they ft together in the communication process? Illustrate your response by drawing the model What are four major categories of public relations communi cation effects and some examples of each? Additional Sources Bryant, Jennings, and Mary Beth Oliver, eds. Media Effects: ‘Advances in Theory and Research, 3rd ed. New York: Taylor ‘& Francis, 2009, Twenty-seven chapters summarize the latest advances in major theories and research on media effects. Knapp, Mark L., and Anita L. Vangelisti. Interpersonal Communication and Human Relationships, 6th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, 2008, Summary of literature and theory related to dialogue, interaction rituals, relationships, and other aspects of relational communication, Littlejohn, Stephen W., and Karen A. Foss. Theories of Human Communication, 10th ed. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2011, Summaries of major theorical paradigms guiding theory and practice, Chapter 8 + Communication Theories and Contexts 187 ‘What are the five dimensions of public opinion? Select a cur- rent events sue and apply each dimension of publi opinion to the issue. How are attitudes and opinions different? Diagram and explain the model of individual orientation and the model of coorientation. + What are the four states of coorientational consensus and ‘what does each mean? Perloff, Richard M. The Dynamics of Persuasion, 4th ed. New York: Taylor & Francis, 2010. Comprehensive introduction to persuasive communication and attitude change. Riffe, Daniel, ed. “Advances in Media Effects: Framesetting and Frame Changing.” Special issue of Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 83, no. 4 (Winter 2006). Five {nsightfil articles on media messages and effects ‘Stromback, Jesper, and Spiro Kiousis,ed, Political Public Relations: Principles and Applications. New York: Taylor & Francis, 011. Covers classic and new ground at the intersection of pub- lic relations, political communication, and political science, {including agenda setting and agenda building, media rations, ‘government communication, and crisis communication, Scanned with