Introduction
Democracy implies that the governance of society is performed by individuals, groups, and institutions that represent the interests of citizens and have their agendas shaped by the public. From this perspective, public opinion appears to be a crucial concept that greatly influences many political, social, economic, and cultural processes. However, researchers have repeatedly stressed the difficulty of defining public opinion. Although public opinion remains a strong factor that many refer to in the course of making decisions and explaining particular phenomena, the term resists being clearly defined in a single statement (Glynn et al. 2015). Moreover, even if the complexity of the notion of public opinion is comprehensively examined and taken into consideration, it is still challenging to define the connection between understanding public opinion and practising public relations.
Public relations entails a wide range of activities performed by individuals, groups, and organisations aimed at achieving mutual understanding between them and the public and building a favourable image that facilitates successful operations (Coombs & Holladay 2013). Since there are various categories of public entities, public relations have different levels, branches, and types. The modern world is characterised by the constant exchange of large amounts of information. People share opinions, participate in discussions, and cooperate via new media on a scale that has never before been seen. Under these circumstances, public relations are crucial for companies, governments, and public figures because virtually any endeavour is doomed to fail unless it gains support from the public by means of communicating the endeavour’s purposes effectively (Grunig 2013). Public relations practitioners inevitably need to consider public opinion because their activities often seek to change it. Scholars have argued that a better understanding of public opinion by practitioners improves public relations practice (Simons & Jones 2011). In order to understand how this happens, it is necessary to define a public opinion, examine its connections to public relations, describe what improvements in public relations mean, and explain the ways in which understanding public opinion can bring positive change to the practice of public relations.
Defining Public Opinion
The common understanding of public opinion is that it is what the public thinks about a particular event, phenomena, person, or process. It is a sort of shared attitude, understanding, or view observed within communities or across entire nations. However, if one looks closer at the concept, it becomes obvious that it is not completely clear who the public is and how it shapes and exchanges its opinions. Glynn et al. (2015) argue that there are five categories of approaches to defining public opinion. Each one is important to consider because it helps outline the concept more broadly and more comprehensively.
The first category is summarised by stating that “public opinion is an aggregation of individual opinions” (Glynn et al. 2015, p. 13). This definition is the simplest and most widespread, implying that people in a given community share views and attitudes due to a common background. The similar characteristics constitute what can be called public opinion. This understanding justifies the measurement of public opinion by means of surveys and polls (Bardes & Oldendick, 2012). Indeed, surveying is widely used as a tool for exploring public opinion. For example, if it is found that 55 percent of people in a certain country approve of the government’s recent policies, it can be concluded that the majority of citizens support its government; in other words, public opinion is favourable toward the current government. However, it should be noted that all citizens are not surveyed but rather a representative sample (Berinsky 2011). This sampling strategy adds to the confusion around public opinion because it raises the issue of how accurately surveys can reflect an actual aggregation of everyone’s opinions.
The second category is based on the idea that “public opinion is a reflection of majority beliefs” (Glynn et al. 2015, p. 14). It should be noted that “majority” here does not mean simply more than 50 percent; instead, it means a dominant group. Under this definition, public opinion is regarded as a set of mainstream views. Noelle-Neumann (1974), an influential theorist in this area, proposed the idea that public opinion is the one that can be expressed publically without risk of the speaker being ostracised or isolated. Therefore, an important aspect of public opinion is its restrictive and prescriptive nature. Similar to social norms, public opinion is about acceptability: there are things one cannot say publically in certain societies (like racist statements in democratic societies), meaning that they are not part of public opinion.
The approaches in the third category are based on the understanding that “public opinion is found in the clash of group interests” (Glynn et al. 2015, p. 15). This is a different perspective that focuses less on how individuals accumulate their opinions than on how opinions are imposed on them. Interest groups include political forces, influential corporations, and activists, all of whom constantly struggle for public support. They have enough resources and power to shape the public agenda. Therefore, public opinion appears to be the result of debates among interest groups.
The concept of producing public opinion is continued in the fourth category, where it is argued that “public opinion reflects media and elite influence” (Glynn et al. 2015, p. 16). This definition means that public opinion is a reflection of the opinions of societal elites, including political leaders, powerful businessmen, and other trendsetters. What is important here is to assess how the notion of “public opinion” is actually generated by groups who have access to or control over mass media and are thus capable of shaping the minds of the public. Questions may arise in a regular citizen in response to this explanation: How can my mind be shaped? Do I not have my own opinion? Herman and Chomsky (2010) Reply to these questions by claiming that a regular citizen—someone who may not be familiar with how mass communications work—would be very surprised to discover how facts can be manipulated, how agendas can be shaped, and how opinions are ultimately manufactured. Here, public opinion is seen as a set of views that is intentionally imposed upon the public, often with malicious purposes such as justifying the actions of governments. Working within this perspective, Lippmann (1922) coined the term “stereotype”, a simplified idea that may or may not be false. Stereotypes are part of public opinion, as they are partially shaped by media representation and affect public attitudes. Approaches in this category acknowledge that public opinion can be measured more accurately by surveying media and leaders rather than members of the public.
Finally, Glynn et al. (2015, p. 19) also point out that some scholars think that “public opinion is a fiction”. As discussed in the introduction, public opinion is an important concept in democracy, where political decision-making is supposed to be based on the will of the citizens as reflected in public opinion. However, decision-makers sometimes refer to a public opinion without sufficient evidence to prove that what they call “public opinion” is, in fact, what the public thinks and how it feels. Nonetheless, it is not suggested that members of communities do not have shared or common opinions that are influential; it is only suggested that the concept of public opinion is often used falsely in the political context.
Although there are more ways to approach defining public opinion, the five categories described above present a wide range of possible explanations of what scholars and practitioners call “public opinion”. After examining each of them, it is possible to describe the connection between public opinion and public relations practice.
How Public Relations Is Connected to Public Opinion
There are many spheres of public relations, which complicates speculating on public relations in general. However, it can be assumed that all of those spheres are linked in one way or another to the concept of public opinion, which allows for an attempt to define the connection on a fundamental level. Such a fundamental connection is claimed by Harold Burson, co-founder of Burson-Marsteller, an influential international public relations and communications company. Burson stated that “public relations is a process that impacts public opinion” (Public relations defined 2011, para. 4). Therefore, public relation is a combination of ongoing activities that are planned and implemented with the aim of modifying public opinion. However, Burson goes on to claim that the “objective [of public relations] is to motivate individuals or groups to take a specific action. Like buying a certain brand of toothpaste or automobile; voting for a specific candidate; supporting one side or the other of a political issue; signing up with one cable provider over another” (Public relations defined 2011, para. 4). A misleading element can be found in Burson’s statements: although influencing public opinion, public relations attempts to motivate individuals, not the public. This idea works within the framework where public relations is an aggregation of the opinions of all people in a given group. However, with different understandings of public opinion (see Defining Public Opinion), this view seems to be wrong.
For the purpose of establishing a link to public relations, public opinion can be regarded as an existing set of strong, dominant beliefs and attitudes that affect how the public perceives new information. Therefore, the goal of public relations practice is, indeed, interacting with public opinion and modifying it toward some desired result. The key element of this process is persuasion. Persuasion has been a widespread theme in public relations literature for decades. Perloff (2010) stresses that persuasion is not necessarily done through massive direct channels of information. Indeed, people rarely change their minds after seeing a single commercial, although much money must have been spent to produce it and show it in primetime. Even if a particular force controls the mass media, it will not necessarily succeed in persuading. It was established in the twentieth century that mass communication messages do not work like hypodermic needles; they do not affect audience members directly by immediately replacing their opinions with the content of a message (McQuail & Windahl 2015). The process is more complicated and subtle, involving many factors like cultural and personal backgrounds.
One subtle persuasion mechanism is social proof, which implies that “one means we use to determine what is correct is to find out what other people think is correct” (Ciadini 2014, p. 88). This view equally applies to behaviours, as people tend to regard those behaviours as appropriate that they observe in others around them. This explains the similarity between public opinion and social norms, which was previously described in terms of dominant and marginal views (Noelle-Neumann 1974). If public relations practice manages to place audience members into an environment where certain things are presented as normal and socially approved, they tend to adopt these things. This is an example of how public relations practice impacts public opinion. Overall, it can be concluded that public opinion is precisely the environment in which public relations practitioners work, as well as their material and challenge.
What Good Public Relations Is
In order to argue that a good understanding of public opinion can improve public relations practice, it is necessary to understand what is meant by improved practice. Similar to public opinion, public relations can be defined in multiple ways (Grunig 2013). A definition used above (see Introduction) suggests that public relations seek to achieve mutual understanding between the public and the public relations source, such as an organisation, as well as to build a favourable image. After reviewing the connection between public relations and public opinion, it can be added that public relations also encompasses the notions of persuasion and gaining the public’s recognition, consent, and approval.
These definitions effectively set goals for public relations practitioners. For example, if a new product is launched, the practitioner’s primary goal is to communicate to the public that the product serves the particular needs of the target audience (i.e., to explain why targets need to buy the product) (Coombs & Holladay 2013). In order to increase sales, public relations communications may demonstrate that the company is not only trying to sell its product but also to contribute to the well-being of its customers. Such an image helps gain loyalty and attract new audiences. If recognisability, loyalty, and sales are increased, public relations activities can be considered successful. Another example is political public relations. Improving public relations practice for an unpopular political figure results in increased support for the figure. Early in the history of public relations, it was established that public relations sets goals and employs various tools of communication, persuasion, and trust-building (Bernays 1923). Achieving goals through comprehensive communication activities is good public relations.
How an Understanding of Public Opinion Improves Public Relations Practice
It has been established that for public relations practice, public opinion is both the environment and the material (see How Public Relations Is Connected to Public Opinion). It can be argued that changing public opinion is what public relations essentially pursues. Persuasion is a major theme for practitioners because persuading is what it takes to gain trust, increase public support, or otherwise affect public opinion. From a theoretical perspective, multiple approaches were proposed to develop effective persuasion strategies.
Besides the technique of applying social proof for persuasion (Ciadini 2014), there are dozens of persuasion techniques and theories described in the literature. For example, the elaboration likelihood model (ELM) stresses the importance of two sides of persuasion: external and internal. This technique explains that the success of persuading depends not on only on the activities of the persuader but also on the psychological processes of those who are being persuaded (Simons & Jones 2011). The response to persuasion is linked to the public’s internal dynamics, which is why it is important to analyse public opinion along with the persuasion process.
Another theory is the theory of reasoned action (TRA), which suggests that modifying someone’s behaviour requires modifying their intentions. Intentions are shaped by attitudes towards behaviours and subjective norms (Simons & Jones 2011), reflecting the two-sided nature of persuasion described in the ELM and corresponding to the social proof theory. Another theoretical framework establishes the correlation between beliefs, values, and attitudes (BVA) and states that one’s favourable attitude toward an object is a result of believing that the object possesses characteristics that one values. According to Simons and Jones (2011, p. 51), the BVA theory “may achieve its generality by being too simple”. In this way, when promoting a certain product, public relations practitioners should not only communicate its characteristics but also link them to the public’s beliefs, which requires analysing the beliefs beforehand.
Based on these theories, there is a growing recognition among scholars that persuasion may be ineffective, even with great resource expenditure, if it is performed in a straightforward way that ignores the different aspects and levels of being persuaded. In their highly acclaimed book, Thaler and Sunstein (2008, p. 5) propose the concept of “nudge”, an idea in the libertarian paternalism framework that suggests that “choices [should not be] blocked, fenced off, or significantly burdened”. It implies soft persuasion in which the public is encouraged to move in the desired direction in a non-intrusive manner. Another important concept is cognitive dissonance: people live a constant flow of information where their beliefs may be challenged by multiple contradictions (Simons & Jones 2011). Contradictions hinder behaviours, which is why it is important for people to resolve conflicts of beliefs. Public relations practice may be successful if it proposes such resolution by reconciling beliefs.
From various perspectives described above, it is evident that public relations practitioners inevitably have to analyse public opinion in order to develop effective strategies for practice. What is meant by analysing is defining what is referred to as public opinion and studying the public’s beliefs and values. Subsequent implementation will include communicating in such a way that will effectively modify public opinion toward the desired result. A good understanding of public opinion ensures successful public relations practice.
Conclusion
Although both public opinion and public relations can be defined in various ways, it is evident that the two are highly interconnected. Public relations seeks to build mutual understanding, gain support and approval, and change the audience’s beliefs, attitudes, and behaviours. To do so successfully, public relations practitioners need to understand public opinion, including its genesis and dynamics, and constantly work with it. Individual practitioners largely benefit from an accurate and comprehensive understanding of public opinion. Industries benefit, too, as the correct understanding of public opinion ensures more stable development.
In a modern world of globalisation and cultural differences, public opinion has become more complicated and intertwined, making it harder for public relations practitioners to work with public opinion. However, this fact does not take away from the importance of understanding public opinion as something that positively affects public relations practice.
Reference List
Bardes, BA & Oldendick, RW 2012, Public opinion: measuring the American mind, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham.
Berinsky, AJ 2011, ‘Representative sampling and survey’, in RY Shapiro & LR Jacobs (eds), The Oxford handbook of American public opinion and the media, Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 332-348.
Bernays, EL 1923, Crystallizing public opinion, Liveright, New York.
Ciadini, RB 2014, Influence: science and practice, Harlow, Essex.
Coombs, WT & Holladay, SJ 2013, It’s not just PR: public relations in society, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken.
Glynn, CJ, Herbst, S, Lindeman, M & O’Keefe, GJ 2015, Public opinion, Westview Press, Boulder.
Grunig, JE 2013, Excellence in public relations and communication management, Routledge, New York.
Herman, ES & Chomsky, N 2010, Manufacturing consent: the political economy of the mass media, Random House, New York.
Lippmann, W 1922, Public opinion, Harcourt, Brace and Company, New York.
McQuail, D & Windahl, S 2015, Communication models for the study of mass communications, Routledge, New York.
Noelle-Neumann, E 1974, ‘The spiral of silence: a theory of public opinion’, Journal of Communication, vol. 24, no. 2, pp. 43-51.
Perloff, RM 2010, The dynamics of persuasion, Routledge, New York.
Public relations defined 2011, Web.
Simons, HW & Jones, JG 2011, Persuasion in society, Routledge, New York.
Thaler, RH & Sunstein, CR 2008, Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness, Penguin, London.