The situational theory of publics was developed by James E. Grunig in University of Maryland, College Park. It proposed that publics are identified and classified in the context to which they are aware of a problem and how far are they responding and acting on the problem.
Its key concepts are:
- Problem recognition. This is a independent variable denoting the extent of which individuals recognize their problem of they comprehend the need to do something to improve the situation (Grunig and Hunt, 1984).
- Constraint Recognition. This is another independent variable that refers to realization of limitations which is beyond an individual’s own control with regards to a problem perceived. Constraints have been described as psychological which could related to an individual’s understanding of his incapacity to deliver a desired outcome for a situation (Witte & Allen, 2000). Other forms of constraints include physical which may include distance or inaccessibility of a needed tool to attain a goal.
- Level of Involvement. This is an independent variable that measures the relevance of a problem to an individual (Grunig & Hunt, 1984). Pavlik (1998) suggested that involvement may increase or decrease the possibility of an individual to attend to or understand a message. As Dervin (1989) added, a problem or a given information may be attended to after the benefits or dangers they bring have “taken on some kind of personal reality or usefulness for the individual” (p. 68). And in order to created involvement, it is therefore necessary that issues and messages have clear or strong arguments (Heath, Liao, & Douglas, 1995).
- Information Seeking. Also called “active communication behavior”, information seeking is a dependent variable indicating a public that searches for information and tries to understand it.
- Information Processing. The actions taken from the instant a message is sent and received up to the time actions are resolved to be taken is information processing which is another dependent variable.
With this information at hand, this paper proceeds to analyze 17 peer-reviewed articles or books related to the study of the Situational Theory of Publics. It will try to show common themes, assumptions, theories and contradictions. It will also discuss the articles as a group and report any consensus, disagreement or gaps in the body of knowledge. The goal of this paper is to be able to advance a new research question or hypothesis based on the discussion.
Discussion
Clarke and Kline (1974) suggested that information seeking is premeditated, “planned scanning of the environment for messages about a specified topic” (p 233) but information processed is “unplanned discovery of a message, followed by continued processing of it, (p 233). In addition, Clarke and Kline proposed that information seeking and processing behaviors lead individuals to use different communication media, a behavior of casual process that “often takes place randomly,” through the use of news media sources such as radio, newspapers and television (p 240), and today, the internet.
In Major’s (1998) paper posing the need for public relations program to educate people who live in communities at risk, government officials and public affairs directors are urged to develop public communication programs for the purpose. In this instance, the situational theory provides as framework for examining three sets of variables in the risk-assessment process that have been found to influence public response to disaster warnings. It used the New Madrid 1990 earthquake prediction of Iben Browning, then called a “climatologist”. In all, 624 news stories came out after the prediction was announced in 1989 and after the predicted date which is December 2-3, 1990.
Major’s (1998) study found four publics in the situation: the problem-facing public think about the earthquake problem and believe they can do something to protect themselves from the earthquakes; the constrained public acknowledge the earthquake problem but they can see constraints in protecting themselves from the problem; the routine public ignore the problem although confident that they could protect themselves in the event of an earthquake; the fatalistic public report that they do not think about the problem and that they could not do anything to protect themselves in case of an earthquake.
Major (1998) acknowledged that situational theory explains not only communication behavior but also a number of cognitive variables in risk assessment process. In here, the tree sets of risk assessment variables are: believability of information and personalized risk both related to problem recognition; second is personal and social factors associated with high problem recognition; and third is societal-level constraint recognition that was closely related to personal constraint recognition. In conclusion, it also pointed out that, “All too often communication programs rely predominantly on the news media to disseminate information about preparedness,” (p 503).
Grunig (1989) proposed that members of active publics who join activist groups help to create constraints on organizational autonomy that become major reason for public relations problems and programs to solve them. His study focused on members of the Sierra Club designed to provide a link between two theories of public relations: a situational theory of publics and an organizational theory of the relationship between environments and the public relations behavior of organizations.
The situational theory was used to identify actively communicating publics who are most likely to develop organized cognitions about issues and to engage in behaviors related to those issues. Grunig’s (1989) paper asked whether members of some publics with regards to all-issues, apathetic, single-issue, or involving-issue-only publics have the deeper propensity to join an activist group than members of other publics. It also probed on what incentives such as material, solidarity, purposive, or selective incentives, motivate members of active publics to become activists.
Results showed that members of the most active public, the all-issue public, are most likely to join an activist group as well as participate actively in that group. Members of the active, all-issues public also to join an activist group for purposive, political actions and policies (Grunig, 1989).
Wu, Stevenson, Chen and Guner (2001) examined the complex relationships among recession news, the state of the economy and people’s perceptions towards the economy and found that: the different states of economy played an important role in determining how the public evaluates the economy; the extent to which recession news impact on people depends on different economic circumstances; news coverage may differ but follows economic reality; and that the public’s sentiments towards economy could predict economic performance. This paper led to the suggestion that a “systematic test of issue attributes with time-series methodology is still needed to provide more comprehensive picture […] to adopt a three-dimensional design that simultaneously examines information attributes, sociopolitical situation, and modes of audience reception,” (p 34).
In a paper that applied the situational theory examining the extent of citizens’ recognition of bioterrorism as a social issue, their level of involvement with it, and how their perception affect communication and protective behaviors, Lee and Rodriguez (2007) found that problem recognition is positively related to information seeking and processing. Further, constraint recognition was negatively related to information seeking and processing, and that involvement was positively related to information seeking. This is consistent with previous findings that people who recognize bioterrorism as a serious social problem or a high problem situation and perceive less obstacles that limit their ability to solve this problem are more likely to increase active information seeking and passive information processing. Involvement also results to active information seeking instead of passive information processing.
The study further noted the strong link between the publics’ communication behavior specifically the intensity of seeking information as well as their behavioral intentions before, during and after related terrorism attacks. They were more likely to assemble an emergency supply kit, develop a family communication plan, warn others about the dangers, keep water and food supply for emergency reasons, and contact government officers for assistance during bioterrorist attacks (Lee and Rodriguez, 2007).
As earlier noted, involvement with an issue can affect peoples’ susceptibility to social influence through mass communication persuasion, conformity pressures, suggestions as well as face-to-face discussion. It suggested for the need to invest in public information to enhance peoples’ problem recognition and involvement with the issue and trigger more information seeking from audiences (Lee and Rodriguez, 2007).
Comparison and Analysis
The variables of situational theory of publics are constant among all the studies presented: there is problem recognition, constraint recognition, level of involvement, information seeking, and information processing.
Among the studies, there is a constant presence of the use of media as “message” conveyor or information channel. Clarke and Kline acknowledged the role of media as ordinary as casual, while Major’s work provided a sweeping role of media as main source and processor for information itself. Nevertheless, Major was able to identify three variables on the situation she presented that further provided a deeper understanding on information dissemination as well as reactions of the differing publics.
However, it was Lee and Rodriguez who provided another link between the role of media and information officers with regards to information of problem or message that is needed for public comprehension, understanding and action.
In all, there is the necessity to address public processing of problem or information dissemination of problems. Issues from local or concerning a group and a select few to major global issues are quite related to how problems and messages are given to the public. Here, the major role of channels or media cannot be understated. Likewise, the need for governments and its policy-makers and officials to consider if not reconsider their planning and strategies when it comes to public information campaigns.
It is of note that information dissemination has evolved into another level of speed and variation with the introduction and fast proliferation of internet’s streaming media. Written, video and audio materials converge in one to onslaught the different kinds of global publics so that certain precautions and strategic intervention of countries’ governments are needed to both safeguard local security and individual rights, but at the same time, need to be proactive to promote the needed information they intend to be reached by their publics.
Conclusion
Undeniably, the situational theory of publics has proven to be dependent on proper and strategic communications processes. Communication ways and means have shown through the discussion its effect on different publics and how it could actually influence recognition, involvement, change and conviction.
Governments and policy-makers need to be adept to current media cultures in order to properly utilize communications and information means. While there is a need to control these means, a certain degree must be carefully evaluated and implemented which must consider its publics. Thus, there is also a need for recognizing limitations on the part of governments and officials as it implements public information guidelines and campaigns.
From here, it can be recommended that governments and policy-makers have to be at least a step-ahead of the public when it comes to problem recognition as well as dissemination of information concerning their publics. This is necessary to provide ample information and arouse public involvement where a problem may cause major issues or influence and effects.
References
Blumer, H. (1966). The mass, the public, and public opinion, in B. Berelson and M. Janowitz (eds.), Reader in Public Opinion and Communication, 2nd ed. New York: Free Press.
Chaffee, S., & Roser, C. (1986). Involvement and the consistency of knowledge, attitudes and behaviors. Communication Research, 13, 373-399.
Clark, Peter and Gerald F. Kline (1974). “Media Effects Reconsidered: Some New Stategies for Communication Research.” Communication Research 1, pp 224-240.
Dervin, B. (1989). Audience as listener and learner, teacher and confidante: The sense-making approach. In R.E. Rice & C.K. Atkin (Eds.), Public communication campaigns (pp. 67-86). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing Public Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Grunig, J. E. (1997). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges and new research. In D. Moss, T. MacManus, & D. Vercic (Eds.), Public relations research: An international perspective (pp. 3-48). London: International Thomson Business Press.
Grunig, J. (1989). “Sierra club study shows who become activists.” Elsevier Inc.
Heath, R. L., Liao, S., & Douglas, W. (1995). “Effects of perceived economic harms and benefits on issue involvement, use of information sources, and actions: A study in risk communication.”. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7, 89-109.
Lee, Suman and Lulu Rodriguez (2007). “Four publics of anti-terrorism information campaigns: A test of the situational theory.” Public Relations Review 34, 60 – 62.
Major, Ana Marie (1998). “The Utility of Situational Theory of Publics for Assessing Public Response to a Disaster Prediction.” Public Relations Review 24 (4), 489-508.
Pavlik, J.V. (1988). Audience complexity as a component of campaign planning. Public Relations Review, 14, 12-20.
Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27(5), 591-616.
Wu, H. D., R.L. Stevenson, H.C. Chen, and N. Guner (2001). “Economic Communication in the United States 1987-1996.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research 14 (1) pp 19-36.