Theory Development in the Public Relations Research Domain

124 Int. J. Teaching and Case Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2015 Theory development in the public relations research domain Nicholas Nicoli* and Marcos Komodromos Department of Communications, School of Humanities, Social Sciences and Law, University of Nicosia, 46 Makedonitissis Str., 1700 Egkomi, Cyprus Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] *Corresponding author Abstract: Public relations are now seen by many as a mature field of study. One reason why the field has managed to establish itself as a discipline is on account of the development of its own unique body of theoretical knowledge. The inception of this knowledge is based around an understanding of the excellence theory and James Grunig’s four-step model. With Grunigian public relations theory now over 20 years old this paper seeks to deconstruct the theory as well as other theories that have enabled practitioners to establish sound strategic approaches and PR educators to establish sustainable curricula. The paper is divided into two sections. In the first, it draws on overarching social science theories in order to offer a descriptive analysis of what theory is. The second larger section is divided into four parts that attempt to offer where public relations stands in a postmodern context before offering a historiography and analysis of excellence theory, persuasion theories and media theories. Keywords: communication theory; excellence theory; Grunigian; media theory; persuasion; public relations; strategic public relations; public relations practitioners. Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Nicoli, N. and Komodromos, M. (2015) ‘Theory development in the public relations research domain’, Int. J. Teaching and Case Studies, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.124–139. Biographical notes: Nicholas Nicoli is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communications at the University of Nicosia, Cyprus. He is a coordinator of the Public Relations, Advertising and Marketing BA Program. He is a Charter Institute of Public Relations (CIPR) Approved Trainer and a member of the European Media Management Association (EMMA), the European Sociological Association (ESA), the International Association for Media and Communication (IAMCR), the Re-Visionary Interpretations of the Public Enterprise (RIPE), and the Institute of Mass Media and Communications, Cyprus (IMME). He is also a certified facilitator of the Ice House Entrepreneurship Program, a TEDx curator and an organiser of Startup Weekend, Cyprus. Marcos Komodromos is Assistant Professor and Lecturer in the Department of Communications at the University of Nicosia’s. He is an Accredited Charter Instructor of Public Relations in Cyprus, Greece and Romania. He has worked in the field of internal communication, corporate communication and crisis management in both Cyprus and Greece. He acts as a business consultant for a range of organisations in Cyprus and abroad. He has more than 12 years Copyright © 2015 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd. Theory development in the public relations research domain 125 experience in the media industry, particularly radio and TV, and has many media projects to his credit. He has published widely on organisational justice, organisational trust, social media, internal communication and corporate social responsibility. 1 Introduction Few people are fond of theory. They find it laborious and of little use, often portraying it as being rather disconnected from reality. It could be deliberated, however, that as the public relations (PR) profession matures, those working in the field might become more sympathetic towards the need and use of theory. And yet, in a survey of 100 PR practitioners in the UK the importance of PR theory was placed at the end of a list of competencies required to succeed in the field (Moncur, 2006). Nonetheless, the use of theory is a vital component in the arsenal of a PR practitioner (Schoenberger-Orgad and Spiller, 2014). It allows practitioners to adjust to situations better and gives them more confidence in strategising, applying – and importantly – justifying tactics. This last point, we believe, is an unconditional requirement in the field of PR. Consider the concept of corporate social responsibility (CSR): Should it not be the case that PR practitioners, building CSR campaigns and programs, ought to be equipped with a theoretical understanding of why an organisation should give something back to society regardless of whether or not there is any palpable benefit to the organisation? Practitioners who are armed with appropriate theoretical frameworks in relation to CSR are certain to have more conviction and self-belief as to why their organisations should pursue such activities. Apart from the need for practitioners to ascertain theories that will provide the necessary tools to help them improve in their careers, there is another, more profound, reason as to why the PR sphere should be concerned with theory. To put it quite simply, all disciplines require solid theoretical foundations. In their edited book on PR Theory, Botan and Hazleton (1998, p.13), note that, “Central to the maturation of public relations as a profession and an academic discipline is the development of a body of theoretic knowledge that differentiates public relations from other academic disciplines. The academic roots of the discipline are clearly found in departments and schools of journalism and the empirical and humanistic social sciences concerned with the study of communication.” We must in other words distinguish the field of PR with other social sciences that are a part of the all-encompassing discipline of communications. For example, what is the difference between PR and persuasion? Why is PR often used interchangeably with propaganda? Which communication theories can PR practitioners apply, and why? How can PR be placed in a digital context? Admittedly, the above points are pressing questions that when answered strengthen the field and give it a stronger metatheoretical grounding. Although we are not delving into areas such as the philosophy of science, we must touch on the basic elements of PR theory as well as address the theories that we believe equip PR practitioners best. The aforementioned theories that are presented below 126 N. Nicoli and M. Komodromos in detail are the most relevant in the field that may enable PR practitioners to become more adept. This paper is introduced in two parts; the first is entitled, How to Perceive Theory, and the second, Theories Relative to Public Relations. The latter is a much longer section which has subsequently been broken down into four shorter sub-sections. The first sub-section seeks to place PR within a postmodern context. In doing so it aims to create an overall awareness and acquaint the reader with examining the bigger picture. The second one looks at systems theory and introduces the Grunigian concept of excellence theory. The third sub-section addresses the connection between persuasion theories and PR and the last one offers a range of well-known and useful communication and media theories that practitioners of PR need to be aware of. 2 How to perceive theory An effective way of understanding and appreciating social science theories is by using an analogy and to help illustrate this we can compare theories to lenses used on observational tools such as glasses, cameras and telescopes. Different lenses allow the same thing to be observed in a different way. Lenses for example, zoom in and zoom out, whereas some use different filters or different levels of sharpness. Consequently, like lenses, theories can take different forms, shapes, levels and sizes. They are flexible and can adapt and change over time. They can be proved, disproved and debated, but most of all theories are used to resolve differences, explain phenomena, and overall acquire a better understanding of the world and how its citizens are informed. Take for instance the theory of structuralism. Theorists from this branch of sociology believe that human beings behave in a way that is often based on deeper structures, rather than on how they are conditioned (a theory social scientists call behaviourism). Some of these structures might form our subconscious (as Sigmund Freud might argue), others might concern money motives (Karl Marx might argue this), whereas others might argue that money and culture are complex structures that drive human beings (Antonio Gramsci). On the other hand behaviourists such as Ivan Pavlov and B.F. Skinner did not take too kindly to these structures; they perceived that behaviour depends on how humans are conditioned rather than on structures that are difficult to observe. Here we have two theories which observe the same context and units of analysis (humans), but arrive at different conclusions. We further create theories to use as guides that help us to do the right thing. These theory types, known as normative theories, can easily be used to test whether phenomena are practiced and exist in a manner which allows society to function and flourish. Because different theories are often used to view the same thing, theoretical disputes often occur. In the field of PR one of the biggest and ongoing disputes relates to what PR is used for. The debate over this goes to the very heart of the field of study. On the one hand there are those that state that PR is about a mutual understanding with one’s publics – the Grunigian view (see Moloney, 2006) – and on the other, there are those that see PR as more of a persuasive tool (see Miller, 1989). In the next section, we endeavour to touch on these debates as well as on several others. Theory development in the public relations research domain 3 127 Theories relative to PR PR is concerned with how humans act, and especially how humans working in groups (organisations), communicate with, and to, other groups and individuals. Perceiving the discipline in this way gives it a much broader and more all-encompassing role in contemporary life. With this in mind we designate various theories and perspectives that we believe every practitioner should be conscious of. 3.1 PR in a postmodern world Contemporary PR became established during a period when society and how we live it, were viewed as both straightforward and obvious. Humans would strive for an education, marriage, two children and a stable job for life. Science, the rule of law and rational thinking were important; it was a period of urbanisation, elitism, and, importantly for PR, homogeneity and large audiences – audiences which could be influenced by powerful media companies that had access and control of analogue communication technologies. Due to audience sizes, advertisers could easily send their messages across and meet their marketing targets. Similarly, PR messages were usually sent to editors as many PR practitioners would imitate journalists and try and get their messages across through their editorial columns (Moloney, 2006). Social scientists have called this period modernity. It continued until the late 1970s and early 1980s but since that period many contemporary societies have undergone seismic changes which consequently prompted a large number of academics to reconsider what era we are living in precisely. The upshot is that researchers remain convinced that the changes are irreversible and so significant that they have coined the period, postmodernity. It has to be stated here that not all sociologists are totally convinced, nevertheless, a sufficient number of influential thinkers have bestowed an appreciable label of merit on this time. While we may argue that in architecture the postmodern chapter started even earlier than the 1980s (Jameson, 1991), possibly the most consequential moment that truly marks the beginning of this new era is the launch of the Apple Macintosh in 1984. It signified considerable variations to modern life and led to a series of changes that are of particular importance for PR. The PC and the internet performed a crucial part in the shift from modernity to postmodernity because it rendered power and a right of entry to all levels of citizens and online users. Furthermore, groups were broken down into smaller segments and access extended into areas that were only allowed by a dominant coalition during modernity. Indeed, the above changes are in line with Holtzhausen’s (2002) account regarding how postmodernity had applications in PR. Specifically, she notes that management strategy needs to be more inclusive since postmodern thinkers reject managers as the only rational employee; moreover, she adds that other stakeholders and organisational actors also play a role in PR. In her conclusion Holtzhausen poses the question, “what are the implications for public relations if other organizational actors have as much impact on public relations as the practitioners who are assigned to this task?” (p.260). As if responding to this question, Coombs and Holladay (2012) argue that because the ‘other actors’ have become so significant and real they are moving away from the fringes and challenging the orthodoxy of the dominant paradigm known as excellence theory. 128 N. Nicoli and M. Komodromos 3.2 Excellence theory and PR By the mid-1980s a large research fund examining the effectiveness and impact on PR had led to various significant insights into how the field should be studied, and more importantly, how it should be practiced. The two main researchers steering the project were James E. Grunig and Todd Hunt. This research paved the way for what is now known as The Excellence Theory. The foundations of the theory were laid in 1984 when the two scholars published their seminal work, Managing Public Relations. The 1984 book introduced the four models of PR for the first time (see below). As a term and then as a dominant paradigm the theory took several more years to evolve until, in the early 1990s, Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management was published (Grunig et al., 1992). Despite its criticisms the theory has been consensus-seeking and has, by and large, managed to create a paradigm shift in the field that is still being witnessed today. For the sake of historical accuracy and correctness, systems theory has its roots in the natural, and not the social sciences. Yet, over time the theory has become more widespread and multidisciplinary with well-known sociologists and communications scholars such as Margaret Mead and Niklas Luhman also using the term to develop their own theories and writings. Within the context of PR, the formula places organisations within an environment often seen as a suprasystem (in much the same way as various organs exist in a body – hence the connection with the natural sciences). “A suprasystem consists of natural, technological, human, political, socioeconomic and market environments” [Creedon (1993, p.158), citing Brody and Stone (1989)]. As systems theorists, both Grunig and Hunt sought to construct an approach in the field that would a priori place organisations within an open system, guiding them towards working proactively in their relative environments. Based on their initial studies, they devised a four-model typology that became a guideline for all PR students and practitioners alike. According to Coombs and Holladay (2012, p.3), “it was designed to explain the evolution and practice of public relations”. With this in mind the history and evolution of the field becomes vital reading in order to comprehend the typology, which is as follows: 1 press agentry/publicist 2 public information 3 two-way asymmetrical 4 two-way symmetrical. The first two periods are what Grunig and Hunt characterise as a one-way form of communication – reflecting what is known as the public-be-damned era. As they argue, it was a period in which the public receiving the messages constructed by press agents (early PR practitioners) were not intended to establish dialogues. The authors claim that the Press Agent/Publicist model would often consist of outright lies and exaggerations. The second point – that of public information – was still one-way communication with the difference between the two of them being that the latter was at least truthful and accurate. As governments and large organisations grew in size across the world during the twentieth century they would frequently practice the public information model. In the Theory development in the public relations research domain 129 opinion of the authors a gradual shift occurred during the 1970s as organisations began to open up dialogues with various publics; however, they still continued to be persuasive. Furthermore, Grunig and Hunt (1984, p.22) had this to say specifically regarding the asymmetrical model: “they [practitioners] use what is known from social science theory and research about attitudes and behavior to persuade publics to accept the organization’s point of view and to behave in a way that supports the organization”. With the exception of only a few organisations (such as Greenpeace), even the two-way asymmetrical model was criticised by Grunig and Hunt because it still meant an organisation acting in its own self-interest. They noted that it was still a form of persuasion, and persuasion is manipulation. For this reason they introduced the fourth model – the two-way symmetrical model. They saw only a few companies and organisations acting this way, a method they termed excellence in communication management. This model held mutual interest at its heart, and as seen in chapter one, most current definitions of PR include this. The logic behind this model is as follows: as an organisation sends out messages within an open system it still needs to listen to what its publics are saying. By doing so, the organisation can adapt and change its own messages accordingly and at a juncture where both parties involved can mutually benefit from the communication. The fourth model gradually became synonymous with excellence theory. As a consequence, all organisations that followed this ideal were seen as practicing excellence in communication management. The central components of excellence theory are: • PR should be perceived as a significant part of the organisation and have relative autonomy in making decisions. • There needs to be separate roles for both PR managers and the technicians that carry out the tactics. • Ethics and codes of practice are significant. • Integration between other forms of communication such as advertising and marketing is imperative. • Two-way symmetry is crucial. And by this, the theory notes that research with all publics needs to be ongoing. Based on the conclusions of the research, the organisation might need to change its own future messages (hence a more symmetrical form of communication). • Strategy and preplanning is imperative in all actions taken. • Strong emphasis on internal relations. • Pressure from activist groups should be viewed as an issue to take note of and to manage rather than ignore. 3.3 PR and theories of persuasion Persuasion plays a central role in PR. We have already mentioned that persuasion and mutual understanding are viewed as two extremes in the way that PR is practiced, and 130 N. Nicoli and M. Komodromos this is considered the main debate in studies of PR theory. Interestingly, persuasion is often regarded as a communicative act as well as an art, (as those who both practice and understand it are aware of). Social scientists that are gripped by the art of persuasion are usually also fascinated by attitudes, the reason being that persuasion serves as the central overriding means to affect or shape people’s attitudes. This, in turn, is important because an attitude is the starting point for how an opinion is formed about anything and eventually it positions how we will act or behave on it. In other words, persuasion is pivotal because it can lead to how we make our decisions in life; these decisions could determine how we purchase goods and services, how we vote, how we rate, etc. Because of the significance of persuasion, many communications scholars are intrigued by its process and understanding. The following theories, ideas and approaches best describe this phenomenon. Rhetoric Theorist/Precursor: Aristotle Date written/published: No records found Rhetoric is the ability to debate, argue and ultimately persuade in an effective manner. Unsurprisingly, rhetoric appears in every persuasive form of communication. It strives to highlight that if the sender of the message is eloquent enough then its content may persuade others into believing it. Aristotle’s rhetoric utilises different forms of persuasive techniques that primarily aim to make the message more believable and consequently appear as the truth, or truest option. Heath (2001) argues that PR is rhetorical persuasion and perceives it to be a significant characteristic of a good leader, something which the ancient Greeks also believed in. To Aristotle, rhetoric was specifically broken down into three different spheres of persuasion: ethos, pathos and logos. In order to rally or to persuade the receivers of a message these spheres must be carefully mastered by the sender. By using various techniques such as forms of argumentation and debate [as in those noted by Ziegelmueller and Kay (1997)], rhetoric can be directly linked to persuasion. But with rhetoric and persuasion also comes ethics. According to Aristotle, ethos appertains to the credibility or the ethical appeal of the character of the sender of the message. The public tends to believe or be persuaded by individuals or institutions that they respect and admire. In many aspects, if an individual has a perceived level of intelligence, is of virtuous character and maintains a good intention, the public seems to be persuaded instantly. In short, ethos aims to project an impression of authority and credibility to persuade the audience. On the other hand, pathos points to the ability of the sender of the message to appeal to the emotions of the receiver. Emotions are best affected if the senses are aroused. If a particular PR strategy stirs most of the senses then it becomes more emotionally appealing and can effectively transform a campaign. That said, pathos is more often associated with advertising because this form of communication is frequently connected with emotion. Theory development in the public relations research domain 131 In Aristotle’s third and final sphere of persuasion he described logos as the perceived intelligence of the sender of the message, such as when a message tries to persuade the public via the use of reasoning. Reason, intellect and logic are more likely to persuade people because these areas of wisdom assume hard facts that can be verified unlike false assumptions or weak assertions. The premise is simple: give the public sound reasoning and they have reason to believe and be persuaded. It is for this purpose that PR messages are filled with statistics, expert-opinions and all manner of data. In the main, politicians, government officials, public speakers, philanthropists, priests and news personalities among others are observed to have mastered the art and science of Aristotle’s rhetoric. These standard bearers have been noted to bring into play the three spheres on many occasions to persuade the public for a cause; appearing to draw on their stature in society and use their gained credibility together with the authority vested in them over the people they are accountable for. It is apparent that this perceived credibility and authority is employed to better reinforce their persuasive communication. Belief Congruency Theorist/Precursor: Milton Rokeach and Gilbert Rothman Date written/published: 1960, 1966 This theory highlights that all humans have a set of beliefs, attitudes and values. Grounded in Rokeach (1960) and Rokeach and Rothman (1966), Belief Congruency makes the assumption that the values that a given society or individual has is based on their attitude on a particular idea. And these points of view appear because of certain beliefs which consequently shape them as cornerstones of their values. We have many beliefs that form fewer attitudes that together, form even fewer values. The interplay of beliefs, attitudes and values is rather simple. The relationship should be interwoven; enjoying a similarity with each other so that a single, seamless form of standards is produced. The theory states that the values that a particular person has may be very difficult to change. However, if it is the beliefs that should be altered first then the attitudes will follow as well. If the attitudes are altered then the values are easier to adjust also. By way of illustration, sodas, soft drinks and other ‘unhealthy’ beverages might be losing sales due to a more health-conscious society so the soft drink industry may, therefore, seek to change the belief to reflect that these refreshments are in fact healthy in many ways. This might be achieved through well-handled marketing stints, advertising strategies and PR campaigns that appear to highlight the health benefits of their product. The audience or public that has not considered the drinks as healthy selections in the past might change their belief. Congruently, they might shift their attitudes and start to purchase and even patronise the product. It is evident that there is a change in belief and attitude but keep in mind that there is no change in value. The public may still not begin to buy anything that seems unhealthy to them, but the alteration in their belief and attitudes pushes a change of action in purchasing decisions. Elaboration Likelihood Model Theorists/Precursors: Richard E. Petty, John T. Cacciopo and Rachel Goldman Date written/published: 1981 132 N. Nicoli and M. Komodromos Petty et al. (1981) note that when humans receive information (advertisements, articles, comments from discussions and other persuasive messages) there are two routes used to change attitudes that in turn affect behaviour, and or opinion – the central and peripheral routes. This is the basis of Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) theory. The central route tends to exaggerate the message while the peripheral route utilises cues to gain acceptance. In other words, the central route constructed messages are more detailed and require the person receiving them to be motivated and to have a higher form of elaboration. Contrariwise, the peripheral route messages are shorter, visual or quicker to process. In fact, the peripheral route is used without the receiver even knowing about it: It could be the good quality of the image, or a catchy phrase. Unlike the central route, it does not require the receiver to use extensive and elaborative ways of thinking before the message is accepted. Most 15 or 30 second advertisements, for instance, use the peripheral route in order to acquire as many potential buyers as possible. The goal is to grasp the attention of the audience so that the product is purchased in the quickest time possible. Equally, the central route has been an effective persuasive tool when used in infomercials – where its long-format enables the audience to carefully analyse the messages before accepting or rejecting it. Similarly, a feature story and press release has the same effect. Rank’s Persuasion Model Theorists/precursors: Hugh Rank Date written/published: 1976 This theory explains that persuaders use two techniques to get their messages across; intensify and downplay. According to Rank’s (1976) persuasion model, persuaders will tend to focus on or intensify the strong attributes of their message and/or highlight the weak characteristics of a competing message. Also, persuaders tone down or downplay their weak distinguishing qualities while they try to restrain the strong and positive points of their opponent. The intensify schema of Rank can be divided further into repetition, association and composition, while the downplay schema can be broken down into diversion, omission and confusion. Rank described repetition as the repetitive firing of visuals, or word patterns to invoke recall on the mind of the receiver thus intensifying persuasion. The objective is to induce in the mind that the word or visual is of key importance, i.e., commercials repeating the words ‘soft’ and ‘smooth’. Association, on the other hand, attaches the message to social norms, mores and culture. In addition, association harmonises with pre-existing and established ideas – for example, an organisation associating itself with anti-bullying through its CSR campaign. Moreover, to intensify an argument, composition may be used to further enrich it. This happens when persuaders present benefits, necessities, comparison and contrast, among other enhancements. As an illustration, in order to attract potential holiday-makers, a country’s tourism board might note that it has the highest rated clean beaches in the region. Conversely, Rank’s downplaying schema can use diversion tactics to persuade audiences by diverting their attention to other positive aspects of the argument. Hence, if an organisation is experiencing a crisis it might create a PR campaign to highlight an area of its functions that was not used previously. When persuaders simply delete or basically say nothing about the pitfalls of their argument, this is a straightforward technique called omission. Last of all, Rank’s downplaying may also employ confusion. This works Theory development in the public relations research domain 133 perfectly when reinforced with data, statistics and scientific approaches. To give an instance, if a phone maker has been accused of using a design similar to a competitor the company might issue a series of technical press releases to unravel how they innovated the design and confuse their publics by doing so. Social Judgment Theory Theorists/precursors: Muzafer Sherif and Carl Iver Hovland Date written/Published: 1961 Social Judgment Theory (Sherif and Hovland, 1961) assumes that people are consumed with their own set of attitudes and therefore judge messages subjectively rather than objectively. The acceptance of messages is compared to already held opinions, beliefs, attitudes and values. When received, there seems to be a cross checking of these factors to the imminent message. If it falls into place in the psyche of the receiver then it is accepted, whereas if it does not give the impression that it will fit with the presently held belief system and attitudes of the individual, then it is discarded. Social Judgment Theory entails three concepts; latitudes of acceptance, rejection and non-commitment, assimilation and contrast and ego-involvement [Perloff, (2003), pp.60–64]. In latitude of acceptance the receiver stores all accepted messages but in the latitude of rejection all rejected messages are retained. The realm of the latitude of non-commitment lies in the middle of the two aforementioned continuums. This area, or latitude, appears to hold the perspectives and standpoints whereby the receiver of the message becomes apathetic. Perloff notes that “individuals with … extreme views on a topic have large latitudes of rejection. They reject nearly all opposing arguments and accept only statements that are adjacent to their own …” (p.60). When people receive confusing messages they either assimilate them to fit their own values or contrast them so that they are unlikely to be accepted and agreed on (or be persuaded by). A couple that live together might assimilate each other’s messages until they argue for the first time and realise that their attitude towards something is not what they thought it was. Perloff (2003, p.61) claims that this is why politicians frequently make ambiguous statements in order not to offend constituents. Additionally, the acceptance or rejection of messages also depends on the ego-involvement of the receivers. If the receiver(s) of the message or the ones who are being persuaded are highly involved, then it becomes harder to persuade them. Highly involved individuals will evaluate every possible aspect of facts in a matter they have assessed and scrutinised which is important to them and therefore, they will have larger latitudes of rejection concerning that subject. A simple example will explain this seemingly obvious point. Suppose a friend is trying to persuade you to go to the cinema and the choice is between two films – one is a comedy and the other is a drama. If you are not particularly involved in genre selections, or you are not a big movie buff, then you will probably go to whichever film your friend chooses and generally not have much of an opinion. On the other hand, if you are really involved in movie-going and take it more seriously, then you might be more active in making the choice of which film to watch. Source Credibility Theory Theorists/Precursors: Carl Hovland, Irvin Janis and Harold Kelley Date written/published: 1953 134 N. Nicoli and M. Komodromos This theory appears to be within the ethos sphere of Aristotle’s Rhetoric. Hovland et al. (1953) state that individuals are more likely to be persuaded by someone who has an established credibility. Similarly, people tend to be persuaded by individuals who are in authority or have social attractiveness. Source Credibility Theory gave a new perspective to Aristotle’s ethos since the theory deconstructs the essential elements of credibility. By doing so it allows the main idea of the theory to be clearer and less equivocal than Aristotle’s ethos concept. Credibility essentially derives from three main elements – expertise, trustworthiness and goodwill [Perloff, (2003), pp.160–162]. Expertise is based on what the receiver thinks the sender’s level of knowledge is on a specific issue; trustworthiness is based on the sender’s honesty, character and safety; and finally goodwill is defined by Perloff as the “perceived caring” of the sender (p.161). Credibility is of extreme importance in PR, and practitioners often do their utmost to employ credible media relations to cover their stories. By doing so, the publics who read or view the stories are more easily persuaded that the messages are credible; this is the basis of source credibility theory. Activation Theory of Information Exposure Theorists/Precursors: Lewis Donohew, Phillip Palmgreen and Jack Duncan Date written/published: 1980 Activation Theory of Information Exposure states that prior to individuals accepting a message or before they are persuaded, they first seek to satisfy their need for stimulation and information. This means that the majority of individuals would most likely seek gratification or fulfilment of their cognitive and biological senses. The foundation of this theory derives from the fact that individuals do not accept messages when it does not satisfy the way they think and the way they feel, and they become increasingly difficult to persuade when these two factors are not satiated. Donohew et al. (1980) explain that the level of information we seek varies from individual to individual; some people have a more acute need for information activation and generally have need of more sensations in their lives. However, those with a low level of stimulation are aroused with lower levels of information. In other words, high sensation seekers have a higher level of optimal arousal but if it is not met they lose interest and cannot be persuaded. We can draw an analogy between a high sensation seeker and an adrenaline junkie that base jumps; will this person be stimulated by a theme park ride – probably not? In the same way, certain types of people need more information-stimulation. For example, many people who try experimental drugs do so because they are sensation-seekers and most likely have higher levels of optimal information activation. If a public service PR campaign is to succeed in persuading them to stop taking drugs it would also need to embody a high level of optimal arousal (more daring images, tone, tactics, etc.). Fear Appeals Theorist/Precursor: Kim Witte Date written/published: 1998 Fear Appeals was primarily made as a health communication theory. Witte (1998) used this theory to persuade the public against the spread of AIDS; it explains that using fear Theory development in the public relations research domain 135 or instilling terror in the minds of the public will persuade them. Witte wrote in his journal that hesitations are cast aside because fear influences or motivates people to take actions. This theory becomes very useful when persuaders want to induce a change in views and behaviour in a particular subject. The principle behind this theory is that when fear becomes an element in any given situation it drives the receivers of the message to act. Given the fact that they see, hear and feel the terrible things (read: gory, gruesome, horrible, etc.) that might happen to them if the message is not followed, they willingly follow the message. In short, fear appeals present a cause-effect kind of persuasion by using hard-hitting, usually graphic representations of the possible outcomes when the message is rejected. Although this concept was originally researched by Witte as a health communication theory, it can also best describe why campaigns on environmental awareness are so effective in persuading people. The Earth Hour campaign, for example, has been effective because it has instilled fear in the minds of so many people on a subject that is important for everyone. The negative repercussions of environment neglect (such as the use of CFCs, illegal logging, etc.) through old and new media has all served to inculcate fear. The Fear Appeals model therefore tells us that the public will more likely be persuaded if fear is added to a given situation. 4 PR and communication and media theories Hypodermic Needle/Magic Bullet Theory Theorists/Precursors: Elihu Katz and Paul Lazarsfeld Date written/published: 1955 Although the Hypodermic Needle Theory (Katz and Lazarsfeld, 1955) is now somewhat outdated, it demonstrates how significant the media became during the mid-20th century. The theory states that receivers of media messages are extremely passive, absorbing all media content as if messages are received intravenously by needle, or shot into the brain like a bullet (hence the names given to the theory). At the time, a number of occurrences offered support of the theory. A well-known case in media studies is the Orson Welles’ War of the Worlds incident in 1938. Radio producer Welles created a radio segment about Martians invading Earth (a story written years earlier). Members of the public listening to the transmission believed it to be a real news incident. The result was an exodus of thousands of people from New York. Other significant instances which reinforce the theory are the Payne Study in the 1930s that showed the effects of film on children, the Second World War and post-Second World War growth in corporate communication. Two-Step Flow Theory Theorists/Precursors: Paul Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson and Hazel Gaudet Date written/published: 1944 136 N. Nicoli and M. Komodromos The Two-Step Flow Theory (Lazarsfeld et al., 1944) states that the media do not directly affect people as much as people affect people. For the first time in scientific studies the two-step model introduced the notion of opinion leaders. These were people who were extremely interested in an issue, viewed it and received information via the media and then, by using their role as opinion leaders, would influence others around them. Having gained credence because of their reliability, trustworthiness and authority, opinion leaders have the ability to influence and alter behaviour, attitudes and the actions of people that they exchange messages with. The ways in which we understand and consume media have become pronounced in strategising corporate communication campaigns. For example, to specifically target opinion leaders through extremely targeted media which is consumed by a certain category of opinion leader, gives confidence to communicators. The opinion leaders will then ‘do the work’ for the campaign objectives. Agenda-Setting Theory Theorists/Precursors: Maxwell McCombs and Donald L. Shaw Date written/published: 1972 Agenda-Setting Theory informs us that the mass media not only have the power to tell us what to think but more importantly how to think. McCombs and Shaw (1972) advocate that the mass media, especially news media, tends to have a large influence on audiences. They observed that what people talk about at work, at home, or when they go to dinner parties correlates with the news headlines of that period. This theory originates from the idea of salience and framing which means that the mass media has the capability to transfer ideas, situations or issues from media agenda to public agenda. Through a routine of gatekeeping and choosing what to print or air, editors give different weight to different stories (journalist salience); similarly, the news media frames stories in a way that highlights the areas where they want more exposure. According to McCombs (1993, p.4), “Agenda-setting asserts that audiences acquire these saliences from the news media, incorporating similar sets of weights into their own agendas”. Media relations PR practitioners often do the same and choose to give more, or less emphasis to certain aspects of what they want covered in the news media. Cultivation Analysis Theory Theorists/Precursors: George Gerbner Date written/published: 1998 Cultivation Analysis Theory (Gerbner, 1998) asserts that regular usage of media messages over a long period of time gives the user the impression that real-life is similar to the content consumed through the media. Before Gerbner reached his interesting conclusions on how we consume the media he studied it for over 20 years with his colleagues. The implications of cultivation analysis theory are significant on many levels. For instance, it illustrates how a mediated society can be dangerous if those living in it are unaware of the pitfalls. Consider a teenage girl who reads hundreds of glamour magazines and then comes to the conclusion that she is overweight, short and disagreeable to look at because all the women in her magazines are thin, tall and pretty. This diagnosis can undoubtedly affect her self-esteem. In contrast, PR professionals can Theory development in the public relations research domain 137 use the theory ethically to portray a picture of their organisation that over time will be clear in the minds of their publics and stakeholders. Encoding/Decoding/(Active Audience Theories) Theorist/Precursor: Stuart Hall Date written/published: 1973 Encoding/Decoding Theory (Hall, 1973) is the start of the Active Audience metatheory we are witnessing at the moment in communication studies. With the advent of technologies and with more educated and mature media audiences, more power has been handed to us (the audience). Especially through the internet, audiences are now more prone to become involved in the creative process of how the media is produced. In fact, audiences can become producers themselves in the digital age (YouTube, blogging, citizen journalism, etc.) Stuart Hall in the 1970s was one of the first scholars to take notice of this and to break down the linear model of communication hitherto witnessed. He detected that receivers consume the messages they are given but do not necessarily accept them. They might also reject or negotiate with the messages too. This, as mentioned earlier, is the start of the active audience approach. We are currently witnessing seismic changes in how we consume the media which shows exactly how significant the active audience paradigm is. As this publication draws nearer to print many new theories regarding networks, social media, mass collaboration and other digital related concepts are being researched, published and studied at an unprecedented rate (e.g., convergence theories, remediation, digital and cultural theory, etc.) 5 Conclusions Many people dislike the study of theory but those that persevere with it learn to use it effectively in critical thinking, in application, and in comprehending all kinds of phenomena. This paper has examined theories that have been deployed to investigate communications techniques between people and between organisations. The theories introduced here are far-reaching and multi-levelled. Postmodernity, for example, is a broad all-encompassing theory that allows social scientists to perceive things in a new way – or (to continue our analogies from above) through a different lens with a much wider-scope. Much of the research undertaken in contemporary PR academic studies has been through the lens of excellence theory. This approach, introduced in the mid-1980s and refined in the early 1990s, is important for PR practitioners simply because it is the only theory developed for this discipline. Although currently it is the main metatheoretical approach in the field it is also being challenged from within the sphere of persuasion studies. Additionally, a large number of persuasion theories have been introduced in this paper. Finally, we have looked at several media and communication theories in order to give the reader an opportunity to appreciate why media relations is such a significant aspect of PR. Here, it is worth mentioning once more that the area of digital media is constantly evolving and will continue to challenge many twentieth century theories on account of the new-found influence and access being extended to different groups and individuals. 138 N. Nicoli and M. Komodromos References Botan, C.H. and Hazleton, V. (Eds.) (1989) Public Relations Theory, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New Jersey. Brody, E.W. and Stone, G.C. (1989) Public Relations Research, Praeger, New York. Coombs, T.W. and Holladay, S.J. (2012) ‘Fringe public relations: how activism moves critical PR toward the mainstream’, Public Relations Review, March [online] http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0363811112000562 (accessed 11 July 2012). Creedon, P.J. (1993) ‘Acknowledging the infrasystem: a critical feminist analysis of systems theory’, Public Relations Review, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp.157–166. Donohew, L., Palmgreen, P. and Duncan, J. (1980) ‘An activation model of information exposure’, Communication Monographs, Vol. 47, No. 4, pp.295–303. Gerbner, G. (1998) ‘Cultivation analysis: an overview’, Mass Communication and Society, Vol. 1, Nos. 3/4, pp.175–194. Grunig, J. and Hunt, T. (1984) Managing Public Relations, Wadsworth Publishing, Belmont, CA. Grunig, J., Dozier, D.M., Ehling, W.P., Grunig, L.A., Repper, F.C. and White, J. (1992) Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, edited by J.E. Grunig, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Hillsdale, New Jersey. Hall, S. (1973) Encoding and Decoding in the Television Discourse, Centre for Cultural Studies, Birmingham. Heath, R. (2001) Handbook of Public Relations, Sage Publications, London. Holtzhausen, D.R. (2002) ‘Towards a postmodern research agenda for public relations’, Public Relations Review, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp.251–264. Hovland, C.I., Janis, I.L. and Kelley, H.H. (1953) Communication and Persuasion, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Jameson, F. (1991) Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Verso, London. Katz, E. and Lazarsfeld, P.F. (1955) Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications, Transaction Publishers, Illinois. Lazarsfeld, P.F., Berelson, B. and Gaudet, H. (1944) The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up his Mind in a Presidential Campaign, Columbia University Press, New York. McCombs, M.E. (1993) ‘The evolution of agenda-setting research: twenty-five years in the marketplace of ideas’, Journal of Communication, Vol. 43, No. 2, pp.58–67. McCombs, M.E. and Shaw, D.L. (1972) ‘The agenda-setting function of mass media’, Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 2, pp.176–187. Miller, G.R. (1989) ‘Persuasion and public relations: two ‘Ps’ in a pod’, in Botan, C.H. and Hazleton, V. (Eds.): Public Relations Theory, pp.45–66, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New Jersey. Moloney, K. (2006) Rethinking Public Relations: PR Propaganda and Democracy, 2nd ed., Routledge, Abingdon. Moncur, C. (2006) ‘Embracing PR theory: an opportunity for practitioners?’, Journal of Communication Management, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp.95–99. Perloff, R.M. (2003) The Dynamics of Persuasion: Communication and Attitudes in the 21st Century, 2nd ed., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., New Jersey. Petty, R., Cacioppo, J.T. and Goldman, R. (1981) ‘Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 41, No. 5, pp.847–855, American Psychological Association, Inc. Rank, H. (1976) ‘Teaching about public persuasion’, in Dietrich, D. (Ed.): Teaching about Doublespeak, pp.3–19, National Council of Teachers of English, Illinois. Theory development in the public relations research domain 139 Rokeach, M. (1960) The Open and Closed Mind: Investigations into the Belief System and Personality Systems, Basic Books, New York. Rokeach, M. and Rothman, G. (1966) ‘The principle of belief congruence and the congruity principle as models of cognitive interaction’, Psychological Review, Vol. 72, No. 2, pp.128–142. Schoenberger-Orgad, M and Spiller, D. (2014) ‘Critical thinkers and capable practitioners: preparing public relations students for the 21st century’, Journal of Communications Management, Vol. 18, No. 3, pp.210–222. Sherif, M. and Hovland, C.I. (1961) Social Judgment: Assimilation and Contrast Effects in Communication and Attitude Change, Yale University Press, New Haven, CT. Witte, K. (1998) ‘Fear as motivator, fear as inhibitor: using the extended parallel process model to explain fear appeal successes and failures’, in Anderson, P. and Guerrero, L. (Eds.): Handbook of Communication and Emotion: Research, Theory, Applications, and Contexts, pp.424–451, Academic Press, London. Ziegelmueller, G. and Kay, J. (1997) Argumentation: Inquiry and Advocacy, Allyn and Bacon, Boston.