Situational Theory of Publics

Abstract

One the foundations of the four step process of public relations is identifying a target audience to communicate messages with. The situational theory of publics informs public relations professionals how to divide publics into smaller groups based on three variables. These groups all have a different way they gather and process information about a topic. By dividing people into groups based on problem recognition, constraint recognition and level of involvement, public relations professionals will be more successful in developing tactics and delivering messages that will accomplish their objectives. These objectives are usually to turn an uninformed and uninvolved group of people into an involved public. The situation theory of publics is one of the most important communication theories, because it aids in this development.

Introduction

This article will explore the variables in the situational theory of publics and explain why this theory can be used by public relations professionals when constructing a campaign. The situational theory of publics is a communications theory that states large groups of people can be divided into four publics based on their recognition and involvement about an organization or issue . It helps explain why certain publics are active or passive in their search for information about a topic. It also helps explain a publics’ behavior after they process information . After acknowledging the four publics, public relations professionals can select and communicate with one of these groups to accomplish a goal. A message delivered to each one of the four publics should serve a different purpose. There are publics that need to be informed about a topic and publics that need to be informed about how to participate. The situational theory of publics describes, with three variables, how individuals are divided into one of the publics.

 

Theory Description

The situational theory of publics was developed by J. E. Grunig in 1968. He theorized that there are specific variables that determine a person’s inclusion into one of four publics. These three variables are problem recognition, constraint recognition and level of involvement (Grunig, 1989). By understanding a person’s association with each variable, public relations professionals can classify that person into one of the four publics. Each of the four publics has a different way of gathering information about a situation. The publics also have a different response to a situation after they process the information (Aldoory, 2010). After classification, professionals can construct a strategy to deliver a message to their audience in the most effective way based on the audiences expected behavior.

To understand the situational theory of publics one must first understand what this theory seeks to measure. In this theory there are two dependent variables. These variables are active and passive communication behavior. The two are also more commonly called information seeking and information processing (Grunig, 1989). Information seeking is how people gather information about a topic. If they go out of their way to find stories and information about a topic they are more likely to be a part of an “aware” or “active” public. Information processing describes how people deal with information that is put in front of them. Someone that is a part of an aware or active public will try to understand information to the best of their ability. On the other hand, people who are in a “latent” or “non-public” will process the information only if it is put in front of them by chance and will not reflect on the information after they have consumed it (Illia, 2013).

This concept of active or passive information gathering and processing is the backbone of the situational theory of publics. Every person is a part of one of the four publics in regards to a situation or topic (Major, 1998). When communicating with publics a public relations professional should take into mind the behaviors of the public they want to influence and communicate with. Each of the four publics have different ways they gather and react to information on a scale from most active to most passive. Non-publics are the most passive of the groups. This group is made up of people who are unaware or do not acknowledge certain situations. Latent publics are aware of a topic or issue but do not recognize it as a problem. Aware publics see a situation but do not participate in finding a solution. Active publics are the least passive. These people see a situation as a problem and are involved in finding the solution to it. For the sake of simplicity, in this paper, active and aware publics will be referred to as the “active” publics and the “latent” and “non-publics” will be referred to as the “passive” publics.

It is important to realize that there are factors that determine whether someone will be a part of one of the four publics. The first factor in this process is problem recognition. Problem recognition occurs when “people detect that something should be done about a situation and stop to think about what to do” (Kim, 2011). Someone cannot be a part of an active public unless they have identified a situation or problem. The behavior of people who are not aware of a situation will be passive. Recognizing whether a group has high or low problem recognition is the first step in using the situational theory of publics (Illia, 2013). Will an audience need to be convinced that a situation or problem exists before going further with them, or is the audience already searching for information about this topic? This is an important question to ask while developing a public relations campaign.

The step following problem recognition in sorting people into one of the four publics is finding constraint regonition. Constraint recognition occurs when people believe there is some obstacle standing in their way to make change in a situation. This can have a large impact on behavior and whether people take action. If people think there is an obstacle standing in their way they will be less likely to communicate about the problem (Kim, 2011). High levels of constraint recognition will lead to people being more passive in their behavior toward an issue. People can be aware of a situation, but if there are obstacles in the way to doing something about it, then people will interact less with the situation. Constraint recognition can be the difference from people being in an aware to active public, or from being latent to aware

The final variable to be measured is level of involvement. Level of involvement measures how much a person is invested in a problem or organization (Grunig, 1989). Higher levels of involvement will lead to persons being more active. For example, if two individuals have the same level of problem recognition and constraint recognition the individual with a higher level of involvement will be more active. For this reason, measuring the level of involvement among different groups has become key for public relations professionals while researching what groups they want to communicate with. Levels of involvement are a large determinate into whether a person will be a part of an active or passive public. Because communicating with groups that have different levels of involvement can change a message, public relations professionals frequently use this variable of the situational theory of publics (Kim, 2011). Will a public need to be motivated to take action or are they already working on finding a solution to their problem? Does a public need to be told why they should take action or do you need to provide them with more information on how to take action?

Application to PR

The situational theory of publics is important for public relations professionals to use because it gives an outline of the different types of publics. The job of public relations professionals is often to communicate a message with some public. After dividing people into the four publics, public relations people can decide how they want to communicate with each public. Each group will receive and process messages differently so each group must be targeted in different ways. Passive publics need information put in front of them and must be given reasons to participate in some situation or problem. If a public relations professional is looking to communicate about a product, they might need to turn a passive public into an active public by persuading them that there is a problem by not owning the product. Or they may need to inform an active public how to acquire the product and that there are not many obstacles standing in their way from getting it.

Research was conducted by Ann Marie Major about how people respond to disaster predictions. She used earthquake emergency alerts as an example to understand how people respond differently to messages. Some people would listen to warnings about an earthquake and others would be skeptical of the prediction. There was not one uniform reaction to this message. She was able to define the four publics and their preexisting attitudes about being prepared for an earthquake. She states “situational theory demonstrates that there is not a single general public response to disaster predictions as has been previously assumed in studies of disaster response” (Major, 1998). This study is one example of a situation when knowing the four publics would be useful. Right before or after a disaster, communicating is crucial. You can either communication how to be prepared right before a natural disaster, or how to stay safe or get to the necessary help after. In this situation a public relations crisis communicator would have to create messages for each of the four groups. Each message would be important and unique to motivate people to prepare for a disaster. Some people would need little motivation, while others would need a lot of information and reasons to prepare.

 

Conclusion

The situational theory of publics is a useful theory for public relations professionals have. By measuring the three variables among individuals public relations professionals can put every individual within one of four groups. By knowing what type of people are most likely to be in what group public relations professionals can then craft a message to motivate or inform that group of people. Because public relations professionals should be communicating with the most specific group of people they can find the situational theory of publics is a useful tool to use.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Illia, L., Lurati, F., & Casalaz, R. (2013). Situational Theory of Publics: Exploring a Cultural Ethnocentric Bias. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25(2), 93-122. Retrieved February 06, 2016.

 

Grunig, L. A. (n.d.). Environmental Activism Revisited: The Changing Nature of Communication through Organizational Public Relations, Special Interest Groups and the Mass Media. Monographs in Environmental Education and Environmental Studies, Volume V. Retrieved February 06, 2016, from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED304332.pdf#page=53

 

Major, A. M. (1998). The utility of situational theory of publics for assessing public response to a disaster prediction. Public Relations Review, 24(4), 489-508. Retrieved February 06, 2016, from http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/science/article/pii/S0363811199801131

 

Aldoory, L., Kim, J., & Tindall, N. (2010). The influence of perceived shared risk in crisis communication: Elaborating the situational theory of publics. Public Relations Review, 36(2), 134-140. Retrieved February 06, 2016, from http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/science/article/pii/S0363811109001994

 

Kim, J., & Grunig, J. E. (2011). Problem Solving and Communicative Action: A Situational Theory of Problem Solving. Journal of Communication, 61(1), 120-149. Retrieved February 06, 2016, from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.ezaccess.libraries.psu.edu/doi/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01529.x/epdf