The Intereffication Model:

Theoretical Discussions and Empirical Research

Günter Bentele & Howard Nothhaft

The Intereffication Model proposed by Günter Bentele, Tobias Liebert and Stefan Seeling in 1997 offers a
complex and dynamic description of PR’s relation with journalism. Ten years since its publication, the model is
well known in Germany and has been employed as a theoretical foundation for quite a number of empirical
research projects. The article outlines the model’s basic assumptions, clarifies the discussion, and presents some
empirical results.

1 The Intereffication Model

The aim of this article is to present, explain and, in part, clarify the so-called “Intereffication Model” (IE) which
was developed by Bentele, Liebert and Seeling about ten years ago. 1 The IE model offers an analytic description
of the relationship between journalism and public relations. It is a well-known model in Germany, and has
proven its value as a theoretical framework for empirical research. Therefore, in addition to discussing the model
itself, the authors will present results from research projects – Master theses, in particular – which have utilized
the IE model in order to analyze the relations of journalism and public relations in various areas and fields,
ranging from politics in the German federal state of Saxony to the EXPO 2000 and Formula 1 Racing.

1.1 From Determination to Intereffication

The IE model evolved from a research project undertaken in 1996/1997. The project investigated the public
relations activities of the East German cities Leipzig and Halle/Saale. In the course of the project, Bentele,
Liebert & Reinemann (1998) carried out an extensive analysis of the press relations of the Department of Public
Relations in Leipzig and of the Press and Advertising Office (Presse- und Werbeamt) of the city of Halle/Saale.
In addition, interviews were conducted with the staff of the respective press departments as well as with various
internal sources of information and communication, i.e., predominantly the heads of functional departments.
Furthermore, there was a series of interviews with journalists covering affairs in both cities.
When the project started, theoretical considerations revolved around an influence model – in particular
Barbara Baerns’ determination model, which is well known amongst German communication scholars. In the
late 1970s and early 1980s, Baerns conducted several studies and drew attention to the fact that a significant part
of journalistic work relies on public relations. Contrary to what audiences commonly believe, Baerns proved that
a lot of journalistic output can be traced back to PR input, no matter whether primary or secondary media,
printed media or broadcasting are concerned: “Hence, public relations does not only dominate journalistic
investigation but all types of information sources (...).” 2 Another frequently quoted statement by Baerns is that
public relations “determines” both the topics of media activities and the timing, i.e., the point of time when an
issue is supposed to be on the agenda. Because Baerns used the word “determination” to characterize PR
influence, the term “Determination Thesis” was coined and rapidly adopted by other scholars. 3 Baerns’
observations, backed by empirical evidence, had a strong impact on the professional field of communication as
well as on communication studies. Many PR practitioners became aware of the fact that their professional
activity resulted in much greater overall influence of PR than they perceived from their respective individual
perspectives. From a practitioner’s perspective, it often appears difficult to get a message through to journalists.
Baerns’ study made practitioners aware of the fact that although they themselves may not always succeed, the
overall influence of PR remains significant. Baerns’ conclusions also sparked intense discussion in journalistic
circles. As journalists often regard themselves as independent and neutral observers virtually immune to
influence and manipulation, the idea of news coverage being determined by PR ran contrary to journalistic self-
perception.

1
Cf. Bentele, Liebert, & Seeling (1997). An article which introduces the IE model is also available in
English language. It is dedicated to Jaakko Lehtonen on behalf of his 60th birthday. Cf. Bentele (2002).
2
Cf. Baerns (1991, p. 87), Baerns (1979). Primary media are, for example press agencies, secondary media
are newspapers, radio and TV programmes, etc.
3
Cf. for example Burkart (2002, p. 293ff.), Szyszka (1997).
 With a view to research, Baerns’ studies stimulated a wealth of further studies investigating the relationship
between journalism and public relations. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that Baerns’ classical studies
founded a research tradition.4 What is even more important, Baerns’ work forced a different perspective of
reasoning upon communication scholars. While the majority of scholars traditionally focused their empirical and
analytical interest on journalism and media, Baerns drew attention to the fact that journalism is not conceivable
without referring to sources of information, and that relying on sources has consequences: As soon as a journalist
implicitly or explicitly utilizes a source, at least a topical or issue-related influence must be considered. Due to
the discipline’s traditional preoccupation with media, however, it was very difficult to analyze and investigate
communication sources, i.e., non-media organizations. Only with PR research gaining ground within
communication studies, were sources treated as a factor in their own right, with their own interests and agendas,
not merely as variables influencing journalistic coverage. 5
So, while the research work on the Leipzig/Halle-project began based on Baerns’ work, it soon became
clear that the concept of determination – despite its heuristic merits – was not, in itself, sufficient for the task.
One of the main reasons was that the determination thesis focused on only one direction of influence within the
complex relationship – namely the influence of PR on journalism. To the authors, however, there seemed to be
other, reciprocal influences. In order to come to grips with the complexity of the municipal public relations, a
more elaborate model was needed. Consequently, Bentele, Liebert and Seeling developed a sophisticated
approach, which took the mutual influences of both the journalistic and the PR system into consideration.
Wishing to avoid metaphoric terms, the team coined the expression intereffication – a phrase derived from the
Latin words “inter” and “efficare,” meaning “to mutually enable.”

1.2 The Intereffication Model: A Non-Metaphorical Approach

Even within scientific circles, the relationship between PR and journalism used to be described with metaphors
such as “symbiosis” or “Siamese twins.”6 The IE model attempts to come to grips with what is behind these
metaphors. It models the PR-journalism-relationship as a complex relation of mutual influences, mutual
orientation and mutual dependence of relatively autonomous actors or organizations. In mature liberal-
democratic societies, the activity of one side is only possible when the other side exists and co-operates. Under
normal circumstances, the entire PR system as well as individual PR departments or PR practitioners rely on the
cooperation of the media system, on individual media/editorial offices and journalists, to achieve their respective
communicative objectives – such as publicity for particular topics or the change of attitudes.
On the other hand, the existence of the media system and its elements has come to depend on the PR
system’s ability to provide information in a professional, fast and reliable manner. Without public relations, the
media system could no longer perform its “information function” – which, according to the German
Constitution, is one of its democratic functions. This insight has led PR-theorists to the view that both journalism
and PR must be considered as basic constituents for democratic political systems (Ronneberger, 1977; Bentele,
1996) – a view shared by the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) (BVerfG March,
2, 1977). Thus, Bentele, Liebert and Seeling coined the term intereffication to describe a highly complex
relationship between journalism and public relations while deliberately avoiding connotations with which
common terms and metaphors are necessarily burdened. “Symbiosis,” for example, always carries the positive
meaning of a mutually beneficial relation, while “Siamese twins” suggests a somewhat negative, pathologic state
of affairs. In contrast, “intereffication,” being a neologism, is neutral.
In addition to being neutral, intereffication is also an abstract term. One can speak of intereffication with
regard to relations on the organizational level – such as between PR departments and a community or editorial
offices, which cover local events – as well as on the individual level between journalists and PR practitioners
within particular fields of reporting (e.g., politics, economy). Whether one can speak of a system of public
communication comprising a PR- and a journalistic-subsystem respectively is debatable. While the authors of the
original study of 1996/1997 assumed the existence of such a system, scholars such as Schantel (2000) or
Hoffjann (2001) argued that it is problematic to conceive of public relations as an autonomous subsystem within
society. Instead, one should model PR as a subsystem of its mother organization. As there is no room here to
pursue the question further, let it suffice to say that the IE model needs be integrated into a macro theory of

4
Cf. for example Barth & Donsbach (1992), Fröhlich (1992), Grossenbacher (1989), Saffarnia (1993),
Schweda & Opherden (1995), Rossmann (1993). For more recent overviews cf. Schantel (2000), Raupp
(2005).
5
Cf. for example Ronneberger & Rühl (1992), Theis-Berglmair (2003).
6
Cf. Bentele (1992), Ruß-Mohl (1994, 1999). The notion of „antagonistic co-operation” proposed by Rolke
(1998) has not been elaborated yet. Scholl & Weischenberg (1998), referring to Luhmann (1987), suggest to
describe the relationship as „structural coupling”. Another non-metaphoric approach based on economic
theory was proposed by Ruß-Mohl (2004).
public relations’ role in society – whether there is no alternative to systems’ theory in the Luhmann-tradition is
questionable, however.
Now the question is what constitutes the interefficational relationship? As illustrated by Figure 1, the IE
model conceives of a double-dual system, in which two types of influence are subject to empirical investigation,
namely communicative inductions and adaptations.

Figure 1: The intereffication model (adapted from Bentele & Nothhaft, 2004, p. 68)

Within the intereffication model, inductions are defined as intended and directed communicative offers or
stimuli, which result in resonances in the respective other system. The resonances are open to observation and, to
a degree, measurable – for example, as media resonances. A typical example is the utilization of a story offered
by PR to a newspaper. This would be called “PR-induced” coverage. 7
Adaptations can be defined as communicative and organizational processes of adjustment. In other words,
actions by which actors or organizations consciously adapt themselves to changing circumstances (e.g.
organizational or time routines) in order to optimize their own communicative success. To a degree, mutual
adaptation is the prerequisite for any successful interaction; if adaptation is insufficient, interaction is hindered or
even impossible. Adaptations also rely on expectations and past experiences, which evolve within professional
work and which are already conveyed in education (as rules of the trade).
It has to be emphasized that the IE model – though its graphic description might suggest otherwise – does
not constitute a balanced or symmetric model. Inductions and adaptations do not neutralize each other and can
vary from actor to actor. While one organization may be very powerful and able to impose its own rules on
journalists, another organization may find it necessary to make concessions in order to attract any journalistic
attention at all. In her IE-based analysis of the media relations of four Formula 1 Racing teams, Julia Schlenz
(2002) gathered empirical evidence which proves that this indeed is the case: While press officers of powerful
and successful racing teams forced journalists to adapt to their routines and schedules, PR people of less
resourceful teams behaved far more accommodating towards special wishes or requests. On the other hand,
journalists representing powerful institutions, such as RTL, Formula 1’s TV partner in Germany, exerted far
more power to demand cooperation than the correspondents did of small, insignificant newspapers.
In the light of this, it is important to note that the IE model is descriptive in character. It does not furnish a
ready-made answer to the question of who controls whom. Instead, it provides a theoretical basis for studies,
which seek to answer the question empirically.8 In the authors’ view, it is a question of empirical investigation to
what extent and by which means concrete PR actors or institutions control concrete journalists or media – and
vice versa.
As the multi-layered illustration in Figure 1 indicates, both inductions and adaptations occur in three
dimensions: namely the psycho-social, the temporal and the object dimension.

7
Cf. summarizing and as overview Baerns (1995).
8
It has to be noted that the model’s validity depends on political circumstances. One can only speak of IE
with a view to developed, industrialized societies enjoying a democratic and relatively autonomous media
system. In authoritarian societies such as the German Empire (Seeling, 1996), and even more so in
dictatorial societies, the media system has only limited autonomy. Cf. Bentele (2005) for a study of public
relations in the former German Democratic Republic (GDR).
 What are inductive activities of the PR system directed at the journalistic system? Obviously, there are the
two aspects, which have been investigated in the tradition of determination thesis, namely
agenda-building/issue-generating and timing. Theoretically speaking, these “classic” cases constitute inductions
in the objective and the temporal dimension. In addition, there is the psycho-social dimension, where the issues
at hand are personal and social relations between the actors.
Adaptations of the PR system are also temporal, objective and psycho-social. Temporal adaptation is
reflected by the fact that PR-practitioners time their work in order to meet editorial deadlines, for example. The
object dimension comprises many aspects, beginning with the fact that PR adapts the criterions of relevance of
its respective target media or employs formats, which are compatible with the target media’s formats (e.g.,
footage material for broadcasters). Finally, psycho-social adaptations reflect the fact that PR actors and
organizations adapt to the journalistic mindset, to the way journalists work, and to journalistic hierarchies.
Journalistic induction can be interpreted in two different ways: On the one hand (and that is what the
authors had in mind when the IE-Model was introduced), there is induction activity aimed at material, texts or
media offered by PR sources. In this interpretation, the journalistic end-product is regarded as some kind of
virtual co-production of PR and journalism. While PR supplies journalists with a constant stream of facts, figures
and stories, journalists select which information is published, decide on placement and importance, assess,
evaluate and comment on facts, supply additional information etc. There is, however, an alternative
interpretation. Here, induction activity is understood as being aimed at the PR actor or his organization. For
example, one would speak of the media-induced actions of companies when it is clear that corporations are
influenced by media or public pressure, be it actual or anticipated.
Finally, journalistic adaptation to PR routines and rules is observable where journalists are forced to adhere
to rules imposed upon them by the PR side. This is commonly the case in parliamentary journalism, where
accreditation goes hand in hand with a professional code of conduct – be it explicit or implicit. An illustrative
example is the “embedding” of journalists into the US Armed Forces during the Operation “Iraqi Freedom.”
Here, the Armed Forces were in a position to impose certain, very strict rules on the participating journalists.
Prima facie, adaptation activities of one system seem identical to the induction activities of the other
system, and vice versa. However, a closer look reveals that congruence might be the case in certain
circumstances, but this is by no means always so: Induction and adaptation processes occur simultaneously on
both sides. This is a very important point to note, because it sheds light on the issue of power and on the question
of who controls whom.
Within the framework of determination thesis, a PR-induction, which leads to PR material being published,
was, understandably, interpreted as PR succeeding in “controlling” news coverage. The concept of adaptation
makes us aware of the fact, however, that the message PR succeeded in conveying is not necessarily identical
with the message PR originally wanted to convey and would have conveyed if PR really “dominated” the media
in a strict sense of the word. As PR adapts to journalistic routines and rules of the trade, it might well be that the
message conveyed merely is the message PR thought it could convey. Remember, for example, that journalists
are wary of overly positive or enthusiastic statements. While the boss of the organization would have liked to
present his recent marketing efforts as a “brilliant success,” the PR executive advises him to tone down his
enthusiasm in order to suit the journalist’s expectations. So, one has to bear in mind that there are “tacit
adaptations” – things that are not written and said because of assumptions about the other side, although perhaps
one would have liked to write or say them. Hence, it is difficult to speak of control, determination or even
domination in the strict sense of the word, when the controlling side only attempts to achieve control within
limits set by the apparently controlled side. That is why the IE model is conceived as a double-ended and, at the
same time, dual communication system. The “poles” and their objectives do not only depend on each other, but
do, in fact, mutually enable their own activities.

2 Research based on the Intereffication Model: A Selection

With regard to empirical research, the IE-model was conceptualized with a threefold intention: First, the
researchers wanted to provide a framework capable of integrating existing empirical research. Here, the
researchers felt that the data collected based on Barbara Baerns’ determination thesis would still be valuable
when re-interpreted along the lines of a more complex, multi-layered model. The second intention was, of
course, to provide a theoretical framework for future research. Thirdly, the model was aimed at overcoming
limitations inherent in unidirectional concepts which conceive of a one-sided influence of PR on journalism only
(Bentele, Liebert, & Seeling, 1997, p. 247) – in other words, the researchers wanted to point out the “blind spots”
created by overly simplistic renderings.
Keeping these objectives in mind, one has to state that while some important steps have been taken, much
work remains to be done. So far, there have been only limited attempts to employ the IE model in its entirety.
Especially with regard to the third objective, there appears to be a marked imbalance: Even researchers explicitly
referring to the IE-model concentrate on those aspects, which have already been focused in the context of the
determination thesis. Empirical research so far has neglected media-initiated inductions affecting the PR side –
for example, the power of journalists to force statements and ad-hoc press conferences in crisis situations by
sheer weight of presence. In addition, the way media actors adapt themselves to PR routines, as happens in
parliamentary journalism, has been examined superficially at best. The main area of interest still remains PR
induction affecting the media, e.g., PR induced coverage. In a couple of projects the classic questions are,
however, supplemented with an awareness of PR’s adaptation to journalistic routines and programmes.
So far, there have been a number of research projects that have employed the IE model. Apart from the
original study by Bentele, Liebert and Reinemann there has been Rinck’s analysis of BMW’s dialogic PR
strategy (2001) and Wenzel’s research of political PR in Saxony (Wenzel, 2000; Donsbach & Wenzel, 2002).
Christina Stockfisch’s Ph.D. thesis (2005), which focuses on media relations of the Association of German Trade
Unions (DGB, Deutscher Gewerkschafts-Bund), also relies on the IE model for its theoretical foundation.
Furthermore, a considerable number of master’s theses explored various aspects of the interefficational
relationship. As these master’s theses are not easily accessible to the scientific community, we will summarize
some of their results here.9

2.1 Induction

As has been explained earlier, inductions represent stimuli or influences initiated by one side and leading to
observable effects or consequences on the other side. The IE model assumes the existence of inductions initiated
by both PR- and by journalistic-actors. Without necessarily implying balance or equilibrium, one can therefore
speak of a double-sided and dual system of PR- and journalistic inductions. As the two are observable as both
stimuli and effects, they are open to empirical research.
The theses of Schmidtke, Schmidt-Heinrich, Lausch, Rehhahn and Röwer deliberately employ the same
research design to produce comparable results. Schmidtke’s thesis (2002) investigates the interefficational
relationship between journalism and PR by an input-output-analysis focusing on Saxony’s state-owned
television, MDR (Mitteldeutscher Rundfunk, representing Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt and Thuringia). The author
compared more than 1000 articles mentioning the MDR or covering MDR-relevant topics to press releases
issued by MDR’s PR department KO/MA. Christina Schmidt-Heinrich’s thesis (2002) concentrates on another
MDR-owned institution, RADIO JUMP. Again, the author compares press releases and 265 media articles
covering RADIO JUMP itself or JUMP-related events. Katja Lausch (2001) took the opportunity to take a close
look at the public relations efforts of the mega-event of the year 2000, namely the EXPO. In her work, the author
compares 27 press releases issued by the Expo GmbH Hanover to 239 articles in the national and international
press. Rehhahn (2001), on the other hand, examines the day-to-day media work of Leipzig’s sports clubs. Here,
73 press releases are compared to 286 articles in Leipzig’s local newspapers, LVZ and BILD-Leipzig. Finally,
Röwer’s thesis (2002) focuses on the Leipzig trade fair for real estate, “The ImmobilienMesse.” The author
examines 35 press releases and the way they generated 72 articles in the daily and trade press.

2.1.1 Object dimension

Although various other aspects are touched upon, most of the projects presented here focus on PR-inductions in
the object dimension – replicating Baerns’ classical question. In its original form, the IE model assumed that
inductions in the object dimension should be analyzed along four sub-dimensions: a) topics and their selection;
b) relevance of and c) judging of facts, persons and topics; d) presentation. It is not surprising, however, that the
majority of the projects aim at topics and selection – tracing whether, how and when topics and materials offered
by PR are selected by journalists and find their way into journalistic products. Although some of the works
mentioned here do inquire into the way journalists judge facts or “neutralize” judgments offered by PR, the three
sub-dimensions have so far not attracted much attention. Probably that is due to research difficulties, some
technical, some theoretical. On the technical side, most students made use of press clippings provided by the
various organizations – consequently, there was only a limited possibility of assessing presentation. With only
clippings at hand, not whole pages or newspapers, it was difficult to decide whether the articles figured
prominently or not. On the theoretical side, deciding whether reporting is neutral or biased (judging facts,
persons and topics) requires intimate knowledge of the various topics as well as considerable background in
linguistics. The same holds true for the aspect of relevance, which is context-dependent to a very high degree.
Figure 2 illustrates some results concerning selection, as generated by the Master theses already mentioned.
Note that there are two different figures here. First, there is the figure representing the percentage of articles,
which were probably or certainly induced by press releases. This figure, in dark grey, results from input-output-
analyses where the authors compared articles to press releases. Second, in the case of Schmidtke, Schmidt-
9
Apart from the theses presented here, there have been other projects in Leipzig and elsewhere, cf.
Schwesinger (1997), Beyer (1999), Richter (1999), Hoffmann (2000), Köbcke (2001).
Heinrich and Lausch, there is another figure. This figure, in light grey, indicates the percentage of articles that
the authors traced back to some kind of PR activity other than press releases. This would be the case, for
example, when there is a clear reference to a press conference in the text of the article (“… as a spokesman
announced in a press conference today”). Admittedly, the data here is not as unambiguous as percentages
resulting from a matching of press releases and articles – however, given the fact that uncertain cases were
treated as not induced by PR, there is very strong evidence that PR exerts a substantial influence on journalism.
In the cases of Schmidtke, Schmidt-Heinrich and Lausch more than two thirds of the overall media coverage of
the respective organizations could be traced back to press releases and other PR activities. In Röwer’s case, press
releases alone accounted for 84.7% of articles covering the Real Estate Trade Fair “ImmobilienMesse” in
Leipzig.

Figure 2: Ratio of certainly/probably/not PR-induced coverage in various studies (adapted from Bentele &
Nothhaft, 2004, p. 83)

In the face of two thirds of media coverage being PR-induced (except in the case of Rehhahn), one has to
consider the question of what that figure actually means. One should be very careful not to over-interpret the
data. Of course, two-thirds of media coverage being PR-induced undoubtedly suggests a strong influence of PR.
Nevertheless, the data do not prove that journalism as a system, or media organizations, or even single media
actors, are “determined” by PR in the sense of PR having the media in their grip. Alexandra Schantel has pointed
to the ambivalence that the notion of determination carries. As Schantel puts it, determination can be understood
from a PR-centred perspective as well as from a media-centred perspective (Schantel, 2000, pp. 82-83.). From a
media-centred perspective, one would have to analyze the media in their entirety to prove PR determination. In
order to prove that there is a powerful PR influence on the Handelsblatt or on the Frankfurter Allgemeine
Zeitung, for example, one would have to analyze both newspapers in their entirety, scrutinizing every article and
tracing every scrap of information back to its roots. That is, and has never been, the purpose of the projects
presented here. The projects discussed so far operate from a PR-centred perspective. What they examine is the
relation of PR-induced coverage to editorially-induced coverage with regard to single organizations (such as the
MDR) or certain areas of interest (such as politics in Saxony). In contrast to research focussing on PR efficiency,
however, they do not limit themselves – as Schantel seems to suggest – to the question of how many of the press
releases issued by a certain organization have been utilized by the media. They answer the question whether the
media coverage of a specific organization is determined by journalistic initiative or by the organization itself.

2.1.2 Temporal dimension

With regard to the temporal dimension, one has to bear in mind that Baerns’ determination thesis postulates that
PR determines not only the topics, but also the timing of media coverage (Baerns, 1991, p. 98). Consequently,
the research projects examined the “latency period” which occurred between the issuing of a press release and its
eventual utilization. As data is only comparable for daily newspapers, the overall number of n’s in Figure 3
differs from figures in earlier tables.
As was expected, data shows that daily newspapers utilize the overwhelming majority of press releases
within three days of receiving them (see Figure 3). There is always a remainder of delayed utilization, however.
In Schmidtke’s project, for example, there were 24 press releases, which resurfaced in media articles after more
than a week.
 Time MDR Radio EXPO Sports “Immobilen
Schmidtke JUMP 2000 Clubs M.”
2002 Schmidt-H. Lausch Rehhahn Röwer
2002 2001 2001 2002
Output/
Dailies n=207 n=113 n=36 n=27 n=27
Following 18.3% 55.7% 88.9% ~25% 66.6%
Day (38) (63) (32) (~7) (18)
Two Days 15.8% 22.1% 2.8% ~25% 3.7%
(33) (25) (1) (~7) (1)
Three Days 20.1% 2.7% ~11% 7.4%
(42) (3) (~3) (2)
Four Days 9.2% 6.2% 8.3% 3.7%
(19) (7) (3) (1)
Five Days 9.2% 5.3% ~25%
(19) (6) (~7)
Six Days 12.0% - 18.6%
(25) (5)
Seven Days 3.9% 1.8%
(7) (2)
Week+ 11.5% 6.2%
(24) (7)
Overall 100.5% 100.0% 100.0% 86.0% 100.0%
(207) (113) (36) (36) (27)
Figure 3: "Latency period" between issuing and publication of press releases
(adapted from Bentele & Nothhaft, 2004, p. 92)

Future research should pay close attention to the nature’ of the topic covered in the press release, and separate
current topics with a “best-before-date” from non-current topics. Radio JUMP’s media work, as analysed by
Schmidt-Heinrich, is characterized by many releases simply announcing events, for example. While it makes no
sense to announce an event after it has taken place, there are non-current topics, which can be published when
nothing else of interest is happening. Parthey (1999), in particular, examined the utilization of a press release
covering a non-current topic – namely “windmill-climbing.” Her data shows that 50% of its utilization occurred
after three months, with 15% occurring even after six months (Parthey, 1999, Vol. II, p. 148). Apparently,
journalists “hoard” suitable non-current topics for later use – a fact PR-practitioners are aware of, but one that is
seldom discussed when it comes to input-output-analyses.

2.1.3 Psycho-social dimension

With regard to the psycho-social dimension, the authors have already pointed out that personal or social factors
have not been the object of systematic research so far. Arguably, this is, once again, due to practical problems. In
the authors’ opinion, the obstacles could be overcome by innovative qualitative designs, however. For example,
one could ask a PR practitioner how many journalists contacted throughout a campaign were personally known
to him and how practitioners and journalists alike view the relationship. Another approach would seek to identify
the importance of “contacts” (either with regard to media or in the line of business). The databases of recruiters
specializing in the field of public relations and communication management (such as GK Personalberatung in
Germany) should provide a wealth of information, which, in principle, is open to secondary analysis.

2.2 Adaptation

With regard to adaptation, various researchers have gathered evidence supporting the assumption that PR adapts
to journalistic rules of the trade, and does so in order to increase its own chances of inducing material. One
example is Seidenglanz’s project, which – among other variables – examines how the professionalism of a press
release – its perceived compliance with journalistic standards – affects its chance of being published. The data
displayed in Figure 4 leads to the assumption that journalists tend to use professionally-written releases more
often than releases which display a low or very low level of journalistic professionalism. While only two of
eleven releases (18 %) with very low professionalism resurfaced in newspaper coverage, 55 releases with high
marks for journalistic professionalism appeared 26 times, e.g., in almost 50% (47%) of the cases. What is
interesting, however, is that there is a limit: press releases with very high marks were not published more often
than those with merely high marks. It seems that “polishing” a press release is only advisable to a degree. What
should be polished is the headline though: releases with a concise and to-the-point headline were published in
81% of the cases, while those with a vague headline were rejected in 94% of the cases (Seidenglanz, 2002, p.
159).
There have been other projects focusing on various aspects. Parthey’s research concentrated on press
pictures, for example. After conducting interviews with 23 journalists the author concludes that there is certain,
limited adaptation to standards of journalistic photography, but much room for improvement remains. 43% of the
journalists complained about PR pictures being inferior to genuinely journalistic pictures, while 48% conceded
that some PR pictures are on a par with journalistic photography while others are not. Only two journalists did
not see any differences.
Apart from her interviews, Parthey then attempted an experiment with two series of press pictures – one in
the somewhat “sterile” fashion typically associated with PR pictures, another created by a professional press
photographer. Unfortunately, the experiment failed because neither series was used frequently enough to allow
comparison, but the design in itself should inspire other research to deliberately experiment with adaptation
variables.

“Professionalism” N Selection Quota Induction Quota

Press Releases Number of press Number of
published releases utilized at articles based on
least once press releases
selected
Very low 11 18% (2) 8
Low 39 28% (11) 21
Medium 80 31% (25) 62
High 55 47% (26) 58
Very High 62 42% (26) 55
Overall 247 36% (90) 204
Figure 4: Influence of "professionalism" on selection and induction quota (Seidenglanz, 2002, p. 157)

3 Conclusion

The aim of this article was to present and explain the intereffication model and to demonstrate that it constitutes
a useful theoretical framework for research investigating the journalism-PR-relationship. A selection of results
drawn from research projects conducted in Leipzig and elsewhere shows that IE-based research generates data
consistent with and comparable to past research – while offering the additional bonus of a theoretically sound,
common terminology.
Looking at current research, there have been quite a number of IE-based projects, but there is a marked
tendency to employ the model in part only. While the overall concept and the terminology are utilized as
theoretical background, actual empirical research tends to focus on a few selected variables. Future studies
should aim at ambitious approaches, which employ the model in its entirety. The authors are aware, of course,
that a complex, multilayered model such as the IE model, with its double-ended and dual structure, cannot be
operationalized easily. As the relationship between journalism and PR is highly complex, however, research has
to match this complexity with adequate research designs.

References

Baerns, B. (1979). Öffentlichkeitsarbeit als Determinante journalistischer Informationsleistungen. Thesen zur Beschreibung
von Medieninhalten. Publizistik, 24 (3), 301-316.
Baerns, B. (1991). Öffentlichkeitsarbeit oder Journalismus? Zum Einfluss im Mediensystem (2nd ed.). Köln: Verlag
Wissenschaft und Politik.
Baerns, B. (Ed.) (1995). PR-Erfolgskontrolle. Messen und Bewerten in der Öffentlichkeitsarbeit/Verfahren, Strategien,
Beispiele. Frankfurt: IMK.
Barth, H., & Donsbach, W. (1992). Aktivität und Passivität von Journalisten gegenüber Public Relations. Fallstudie am
Beispiel von Pressekonferenzen zu Umweltthemen. Publizistik, 37 (2), 151-165.
Bentele, G. (1992). Journalismus und PR. Kontaktpflege. Der Journalist, 7, 11-14.
Bentele, G. (1996). Public Relations: Ein konstitutives Element demokratischer Kommunikationsgesellschaften. Thesen zu
den Zukunftsperspektiven der Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. In H. Süssmuth (Ed.), Düsseldorfer Medienwissenschaftliche
Vorträge. Düsseldorf: Universität Düsseldorf.
Bentele, G. (1999). Parasitentum oder Symbiose? Das Intereffikationsmodell in der Diskussion. In L. Rolke, & V. Wolff
(Eds.), Wie die Medien Wirklichkeit steuern und selber gesteuert werden (pp. 177-193). Opladen: Westdeutscher
Verlag.
Bentele, G. (2002). Parasitism or Symbiosis? The Intereffication Model under Discussion. In S. Eskelinen, T. Saranen, & T.
Tuhkio (Eds.), Spanning the Boundaries of Communication (pp. 13-29). University of Jyväskylä: Dept. of
Communication.
Bentele, G. (2005). Sozialistische Öffentlichkeitsarbeit in der DDR. In G. Bentele, R. Fröhlich, & P. Szyszka (Eds.),
Handbuch der Public Relations (pp. 413-428). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Bentele, G., Liebert, T., & Reinemann, C. (1998). PR der kommunalen Verwaltung. Die Presse- und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit der
Stadtverwaltung Leipzig. Abschlussbericht des Projektes
„Bestandsaufnahme, Informationsfluss und Resonanz kommunaler Presse- und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit in Leipzig“ (Vols.
1-2). Unpublished research report, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Bentele, G., & Nothhaft, H. (2004). Das Intereffikationsmodell. Theoretische Weiterentwicklung, empirische
Konkretisierung und Desiderate. In K.-D. Altmeppen, U. Röttger, & G. Bentele (Eds.), Schwierige Verhältnisse.
Interdependenzen zwischen Journalismus und PR. (pp. 67-104). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Bentele, G., Liebert, T., & Seeling, S. (1997). Von der Determination zur Intereffikation. Ein integriertes Modell zum
Verhältnis von Public Relations und Journalismus. In G. Bentele, & M. Haller (Eds.), Aktuelle Entstehung von
Öffentlichkeit. Akteure, Strukturen, Veränderungen (pp. 225-250). Konstanz: UVK.
Beyer, I. (1998). Das Verhältnis von Journalismus und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. Eine Fallstudie (Input-Output-Analyse von
Pressekonferenzen) am Beispiel kommunaler Öffentlichkeitsarbeit der Stadt Leipzig. Unpublished master’s thesis,
University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Burkart, R. (2002). Kommunikationswissenschaft. Grundlagen und Problemfelder. Umrisse einer interdisziplinären
Sozialwissenschaft. Wien, Köln, Weimar: Böhlau.
Delitz, J. (1986). Pressemitteilungen und Gerichtsberichterstattung. Eine empirische Studie zum Verhältnis von
Öffentlichkeitsarbeit und Berichterstattung in Tageszeitungen. Rundfunk und Fernsehen, 34 (4), 513-534.
Dernbach, B. (1998). Von der „Determination“ zur „Intereffikation“. Das Verhältnis von Journalismus und PR. Public
Relations Forum, 2, 62-65.
Donsbach, W., & Wenzel, A. (2002). Aktivität und Passivität von Journalisten gegenüber parlamentarischer Pressearbeit.
Publizistik, 47 (4), 373-387.
Fröhlich, R. (1992). Qualitativer Einfluss von Pressearbeit auf die Berichterstattung: Die geheime Verführung der Presse.
Publizistik, 37 (1), 37-49.
Grossenbacher, R. (1986). Hat die „vierte“ Gewalt ausgedient? Zur Beziehung zwischen Public Relations und Medien. Media
Perspektiven, 17 (11), 725-731.
Grossenbacher, R. (1989). Die Medienmacher. Eine empirische Untersuchung zur Beziehung zwischen Public Relations und
Medien in der Schweiz. Solothurn: Vogt-Schild.
Hoffjann, O. (2001). Journalismus und Public Relations. Ein Theorieentwurf der Intersystembeziehungen in sozialen
Konflikten. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Hoffmann, K. (2000). PR-Bezüge bei Anzeigenblättern. Literaturbestandsaufnahme und eine inhaltsanalytische Fallstudie.
Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Köbke, U. (2001). Einfluss der Medien auf Entscheider in der Wirtschaft. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Mainz,
Mainz, Germany.
Lausch, K. (2001). Intereffikationsbeziehungen zwischen PR und Journalismus. Eine Studie über die PR-Einflüsse auf die
journalistische Berichterstattung über Mega-Events am Beispiel der EXPO 2000. Unpublished master’s thesis,
University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Luhmann, N. (1987). Soziale Systeme. Grundriss einer allgemeinen Theorie. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
Parthey, K. (1999). Das Pressefoto als adaptierte journalistische Arbeitsform der PR. Unpublished master’s thesis,
University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Raupp, J. (2005). Determinationsthese. In G. Bentele, R. Fröhlich, & P. Szyszka (Eds.), Handbuch der Public Relations (pp.
192-208). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Rehhahn, K. (2001). Interdependenzen zwischen Sportjournalismus und Sport-PR. Eine Input-Output-Analyse zum Einfluss
von Presseinformationen auf die lokale Sportberichterstattung und eine Befragung zur Presse- und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit
von Leipziger Sportvereinen und -verbänden. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Richter, S. (1999). Beziehungen zwischen Öffentlichkeitsarbeit und Journalismus. Eine Fallstudie am Beispiel sächsischer
Landespolitik. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Rinck, A. (2001). Interdependenzen zwischen PR und Journalismus. Eine empirische Untersuchung der PR-Wirkungen am
Beispiel einer dialogorientierten PR-Strategie von BMW. Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Rolke, L. (1998). Journalismus und PR-Manager. Unentbehrliche Partner wider Willen. Public Relations Forum, 2, 66-76.
Ronneberger, F. (1977). Legitimation durch Information. Ein kommunikationstheoretischer Ansatz zur Theorie der PR. Wien,
Düsseldorf: Econ.
Ronneberger, F., & Rühl M. (1992). Theorie der Public Relations. Ein Entwurf. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Rossmann, T. (1993). Öffentlichkeitsarbeit und ihr Einfluss auf die Medien. Das Beispiel Greenpeace. Media Perspektiven,
24 (2), 85-94.
Röwer, K. (2002). Das Verhältnis zwischen Journalismus und Presse- und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. Eine Input-Output-Analyse
am Beispiel der „ImmobilienMesse“ der Leipziger Messe GmbH vor dem Hintergrund des Intereffikationsmodells.
Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Ruß-Mohl, S. (2004). PR und Journalismus in der Aufmerksamkeits-Ökonomie. In J. Raupp, & J. Klewes (Eds.), Quo vadis
Public Relations? (pp. 52-65). Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
Ruß-Mohl, S. (1994). Symbiose oder Konflikt? Öffentlichkeitsarbeit und Journalismus. In O. Jarren (Eds.), Medien und
Journalismus 1. Eine Einführung (pp. 313-327). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Ruß-Mohl, S. (1999). Spoonfeeding, Spinning, Whistleblowing. Beispiel: USA. Wie sich die Machtbalance zwischen PR und
Journalismus verschiebt. In L. Rolke, & V. Wolff (Eds.), Wie die Medien die Wirklichkeit steuern und selber gesteuert
werden (pp. 163-176). Wiesbaden: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Saffarnia, P. A. (1993). Determiniert Öffentlichkeitsarbeit tatsächlich den Journalismus? Empirische Belege und theoretische
Überlegungen gegen die PR-Determinierungsannahme. Publizistik, 38 (3), 412-425.
Schantel, A. (2000). Determination oder Intereffikation? Eine Metaanalyse der Hypothesen zur PR-Journalismus-Beziehung.
Publizistik, 45 (1), 70-88.
Schlenz, J. S. (2002). Der Einfluss von Macht auf den Grad der Adaptionsleistung der Systeme Public Relations und
Journalismus. Ein Modifikationsvorschlag des Intereffikationsmodells am Beispiel der Formel 1. Unpublished master’s
thesis, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Schmidt-Heinrich, C. (2002). Das Verhältnis von Journalismus und PR im Bereich Rundfunk. Eine Analyse am Beispiel von
JUMP (MDR). Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Schmidtke, R. (2002). Die Interdependenzen zwischen PR und Journalismus. Eine kombinierte Medienresonanz-, Input-
Output-Analyse am Beispiel des Mitteldeutschen Rundfunks. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Leipzig,
Leipzig, Germany.
Scholl, A., & Weischenberg, S. (1998). Journalismus in der Gesellschaft. Theorie, Methodologie und Empirie. Opladen:
Westdeutscher Verlag.
Schweda, C., & Opherden, R. (1995). Journalismus und Public Relations. Grenzbeziehungen im System lokaler politischer
Kommunikation. Wiesbaden: Deutscher Universitäts-Verlag.
Schwesinger, H. (1997). PR als Informationsquelle im Lokalradio. Dargestellt am Beispiel einer nordrhein-westfälischen
Lokalfunkredaktion. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Seeling, S. (1996). Organisierte Interessen und öffentliche Kommunikation. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Seidenglanz, R. A. (2002). Das Verhältnis von Öffentlichkeitsarbeit und Journalismus im Kontext von Variablen.
Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.
Stockfisch, C. (2005). PR-Akteure, journalistische Akteure und ihre Beziehungen in der externen
Gewerkschaftskommunikation: eine Analyse des Spannungsfeldes zwischen Öffentlichkeitsarbeit und Journalismus auf
Basis des Intereffikationsmodells. Leipzig: Universität Leipzig.
Szyszka, P. (1997). Bedarf oder Bedrohung? Zur Frage der Beziehungen des Journalismus zur Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. In G.
Bentele & M. Haller (Eds.), Aktuelle Entstehung von Öffentlichkeit. Akteure, Strukturen, Veränderungen (pp. 209-224).
Konstanz: UVK.
Theis-Berglmair, A. M. (2003). Organisationskommunikation (2nd ed.). Münster: LIT.
Weber, J. (1999). Das Verhältnis Journalismus und Öffentlichkeitsarbeit. Eine Forschungsübersicht zu den Eckpunkten einer
wiederentdeckten Diskussion. In L. Rolke & V. Wolff (Eds.), Wie die Medien Wirklichkeit steuern und selber gesteuert
werden (pp. 265-275). Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag.
Wenzel, A. (2000). Die Effizienz politischer Public Relations auf Landesebene. Der Einfluss der politischen
Öffentlichkeitsarbeit auf die regionale Berichterstattung. Unpublished master’s
thesis, University of Dresden, Dresden, Germany.