7.2 The Situational Theory of Publics Predicts Active or Passive Behavior Grunig developed a situational theory of publics to explain and predict why some publics are active and others are passive. Within the stakeholder categories he notes that situational theory can identify which publics will “communicate actively, passively, or not at all about organizational decisions that affect them.” [1] Those publics who do not face a problem are those who face the problem but do not nonpublics, recognize it as a problem are those who recognize the problem are and latent publics, aware publics, those who do something about the problem are He identified three variables that active publics. explain why certain people become active in certain situations: level of involvement, problem recognition, and constraint recognition (see ). Grunig’s Situational Theory of Publics Figure 7.2 Rawlins (2006) adapted and used with permission from Grunig. Source: is measured by the extent to which people connect themselves personally with Level of involvement the situation. However, people do not seek or process information unless they recognize the connection between them and a problem, which is the level of problem recognition. Whether people move beyond information processing to the information seeking behavior of active publics often depends on whether they think they can do something about the problem. is Constraint recognition the level of personal efficacy a person believes that he or she holds, and the extent to which he or she is having an impact on the issue is possible. Those who think that nothing can be done have high constraint recognition and are less compelled to become active in the resolution of the problem. Another consideration, is the guideline that people apply to new situations based on referent criteria, previous experiences with the issue or the organization involved. Active publics are likely to have high levels of involvement and problem recognition, and lower levels of constraint recognition. Because they recognize how the problem affects them and they think they
7.2 The Situational Theory of Publics Predicts Active or Passive Behavior Grunig developed a situational theory of publics to explain and predict why some publics are active and others are passive. Within the stakeholder categories he notes that situational theory can identify which publics will “communicate actively, passively, or not at all about organizational decisions that affect them.” [1] Those publics who do not face a problem are nonpublics, those who face the problem but do not recognize it as a problem are latent publics, those who recognize the problem are aware publics, and those who do something about the problem are active publics. He identified three variables that explain why certain people become active in certain situations: level of involvement, problem recognition, and constraint recognition (see ). Figure 7.2 Grunig’s Situational Theory of Publics Source: Rawlins (2006) adapted and used with permission from Grunig. Level of involvement is measured by the extent to which people connect themselves personally with the situation. However, people do not seek or process information unless they recognize the connection between them and a problem, which is the level of problem recognition. Whether people move beyond information processing to the information seeking behavior of active publics often depends on whether they think they can do something about the problem. Constraint recognition is the level of personal efficacy a person believes that he or she holds, and the extent to which he or she is having an impact on the issue is possible. Those who think that nothing can be done have high constraint recognition and are less compelled to become active in the resolution of the problem. Another consideration, referent criteria, is the guideline that people apply to new situations based on previous experiences with the issue or the organization involved. Active publics are likely to have high levels of involvement and problem recognition, and lower levels of constraint recognition. Because they recognize how the problem affects them and they think they