Situational Theory of Publics: Exploring a Cultural Ethnocentric Bias

Situational Theory of Publics: Exploringa Cultural Ethnocentric Bias

Laura Illia

IE School of Communication, IE University

Francesco Lurati

University of Lugano

Rita Casalaz

Freelance, Milan, Italy

The situational theory of publics demonstrates that stakeholders are best segmented into active

publics, given their high problem recognition, low constraint recognition, and high level of involve-

ment in an issue. This study further demonstrates that low identification with an issue is significant

as the public’s situational drivers are increased by a high ethnocentric bias. This argument is inves-

tigated with regard to a specific type of public: journalists. The results confirmed previous discus-

sions of how a specific public’s situational behavior might be influenced by a referent criterion

representing a biased mindset of that public toward the topic.

The situational theory of publics is an influential contribution to modern theory of public

relations. Proposed by J. E. Grunig in 1968, the theory was revised several times before

1984, when the current version was drafted in the manual, Managing Public Relations,co-authored with Hunt (J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984). J. E. Grunig’s theory explains specific

publics’ active or passive communication behavior—that is, their propensity to seek information

on a given issue actively or process it passively—as a function of three situational variables:

problem recognition, constraint recognition, and level of involvement. This model has been

shown to be effective in helping understand the nature of publics and their specific behaviors.

In the earliest version of his theory, J. E. Grunig referred to a fourth variable: the referent

criterion. Although he ultimately decided to drop this variable, several recent articles have

suggested including it in the model (Sriramesh et al., 2007; Sha, 2006). These articles reflect

an ongoing discussion in the public relations scholarly community regarding the opportunity

to consider cultural specificities in public relations theory and practice and, in particular, the role

of the referent criterion variable in capturing cultural identity.

Correspondence should be sent to Laura Illia, IE University, IE School of Communication, Campus de Santa Cruz la

Real, Cardenal Zu~nniga, 12, Segovia, 40003 Spain. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Public Relations Research, 25: 93–122, 2013

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1062-726X print/1532-754X online

DOI: 10.1080/1062726X.2013.758581

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

This article contributes to this debate by empirically testing, via a survey, the role of ethno-

centricity in explaining situational communication behavior. Ethnocentricity is used herein

to mean the tendency to view one’s own culture as the standard for evaluating other cultures

(Neuliep & McCroskey, 1997), but without taking a negative or hostile stand toward other cul-

tures, an interpretation that is largely embraced in social psychology studies (Cunningham,

Nezlek, & Banaji, 2004; Levine & Campbell, 1972).

This contribution is part of a broader effort, currently reflected in the academic literature,

about cultural specificities in public relations, particularly with regard to the impact of cultural

and national characteristics on how public relations is conducted and the importance of

communicating with publics according to their cultural identities (e.g., Choi & Cameron,

2005; Sriramesh & Vercic, 2003; Sriramesh & White, 1992). Because the situational theory

of publics helps develop two-way symmetrical communication (J. E. Grunig, 1992), one can

appreciate why today, more than ever, understanding the impact of cultural identity factors

such as ethnocentricity on stakeholder communication behaviors may be important for sound

communication planning. In particular, it will allow for the refinement of the situational

stakeholder segmentation (Grunig & Repper, 1992) process by embedding an important cultural

variable in it.

The analysis will investigate journalists’ communication behaviors; this special stakeholder

group was chosen for two reasons. First, journalists make up a public that, by definition, searches

and processes information, thereby providing an ideal population in which to investigate the situa-

tional theory of publics, as J. E. Grunig (1982, 1983) himself did in his earlier research. Second,

journalists constitute a population that is systematically confronted with information that has

different cultural implications, potentially exposing their decision-making processes to the

role played by ethnocentricity (Galtung & Ruge, 1965; Hutchenson, Domke, Billeaudeaux, &

Garland, 2004; Wilke & Rosenberger, 1994).

This article paper is structured in six parts. The first part briefly reviews the main tenants of

J. E. Grunig’s situational theory of publics, as well as the role of the fourth variable that J. E.

Grunig included in the first versions of his model. It then explores recent contributions that

suggest the need to reintroduce this variable to account for cultural identity factors. The second

part discusses how the situational theory has been used in the past to analyze journalists’ beha-

viors and the relevance of the ethnocentrism variable in academic research regarding journalism.

The third part describes the research models. The last three parts present the methodology, the

results, and the discussion and conclusion. In particular, in the methodology part we explain that

we built our survey in two steps. In the first step, we identified through a content analysis a list

of issues having global and regional character for our empirical context. In the second step, we

developed our survey to test how the ethnocentric bias of journalists might have influenced their

communication behavior toward these issues.

As the focus of this empirical research was journalists, certain findings will also be of indirect

relevance in media studies, as stressed in the final section of the article. Furthermore, this article,

by looking at the impact of journalists’ individual ethnocentric predisposition on their editorial

decisions, provides elements to improve the understanding of how public relations practitioners

can better work with the news media. This contribution is part of the aforementioned effort to

understand how public relations is affected by cultural specificities, an area that today is well

researched at the national news media culture level (e.g., Kelly, Masumoto, & Gibson, 2002;

Sriramesh & Vercic, 2009).

94 ILLIA, LURATI, AND CASALAZ

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

EVOLUTION OF THE SITUATIONAL THEORY OF PUBLICS

J. E. Grunig’s situational theory is considered a cornerstone of modern public relations (Aldoory

& Sha, 2007). As part of a broader effort to define criteria to segment stakeholders, (e.g., Jonker

& Foster, 2002; Mitchell, Agle, & Wood, 1997; Savage, Nix, Whitehead, & Blair, 1991), the

theory allows for the segmentation of stakeholders according to their concerns regarding issues

involving referential groups and organizations at a particular moment in time. As many authors

(J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984; J. E. Grunig & Repper, 1992; Illia & Lurati, 2006; Winn, 2001)

have argued, the development of such segmentation based on specific situations permits a com-

prehensive understanding of stakeholders by revealing what transforms them into active publics

that affect an organization. According to these authors, this approach is a significant improve-

ment compared to the a priori approach to stakeholders, which segments stakeholders based

on criteria independent of the situation (e.g., Bendheim, Waddock, & Graves, 1998; Clarkson,

1995; Davenport, 2000; Esman, 1972; Waddock & Graves, 1997). In fact, situational segmen-

tation makes it possible to design two-way symmetrical communication (J. E. Grunig, 1992).

Current Model

Publics, according to J. E. Grunig (1983), are ‘‘groups of diffused people who communicate simi-

larly about a set of related issues actively, passively, or not at all’’ (p. 604). Active publics engage

in active communication behavior in that they seek relevant information about issues that concern

them. Passive publics, in contrast, limit themselves to processing information that relates to issues

about which they are concerned, thereby revealing passive communication behavior. Publics’

communication behaviors are influenced by three independent variables: (a) Publics exist because

they recognize that a specific situation is a problem to them—if not, they are generic stakeholders;

(b) active and passive publics are characterized by their low level of constraint recognition, and

both think they can do something about the situation; and (c) that which makes them active or

passive is their level of involvement—publics that personally connect with the situation will

actively scan the environment to look for information, whereas publics that do not feel a personal

link to the situation will limit themselves to processing information that comes to them randomly

in a passive manner.

The Fourth Variable

In his first versions of the model, J. E. Grunig—referring to Carter (1966)—considered the role of

a fourth independent variable in explaining how individuals communicate in specific situations.

He posited that people react differently depending on whether they believe they have access to

decision rules or learning sets they have acquired in previous similar situations. J. E. Grunig

called this variable the referent criterion and formally defined it as ‘‘a solution carried from pre-

vious situations to a new situation’’ (1997, p. 11) or, more generally, ‘‘whether the person thinks

he has a solution for the issue’’ (J. E. Grunig, 1982, p. 47). In his 1977 article with Disbrow, J.

Grunig empirically tested the impact of the referent criterion.

Data from Grunig and Disbrow (1977) showed that individuals who are highly involved in an

issue tend to communicate less actively if they have a referent criterion, confirming what the

SITUATIONAL THEORY OF PUBLICS 95

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

authors theorized. These individuals will seek or process less information concerning the issue,

as the referent criterion provides them with knowledge and experience from previous similar

situations and, therefore, with guidance on how to deal with the issue. In other words, the need

for information is lower.

The only exception to this pattern appeared among highly involved individuals experiencing

conservative behavior. According to Grunig (1977), this behavior occurs when people do not

recognize an issue as problematic and thus do not experience any constraints in expressing their

view. These people form active reinforcing publics that display conservative behavior in that

they are willing to actively communicate to try to preserve the situation they perceive as non-

problematic (Grunig, 1984). If these conservative individuals have a referent criterion, they will

reinforce information-seeking behavior to acquire information that confirms previous evalua-

tions of similar situations. Data further indicated that when involvement is low, individuals with

a referent criterion tend to seek more information, thereby countering the negative effect of low

involvement on communication behavior. Moreover, with regard to problem-facing individuals

(i.e., individuals with high problem recognition and low constraint recognition), the referent cri-

terion makes them more attentive if the level of involvement is low by increasing not only their

information-seeking behavior, but also their information-processing behavior.

J. E. Grunig (1997) ultimately decided to drop the referent criterion because he found only

weak support for it among empirical data, indicating a limited effect on communication beha-

vior. This decision has long been discussed among J. E. Grunig’s colleagues, especially those

concerned with the influence of different cultural settings on communication behavior. These

scholars believe that the referent criterion could be reconceptualized in terms of culture. Such

efforts are in line with the view of J. E. Grunig, who clearly stated that the predicted role of

the referent criterion receiving little support from empirical verifications shows the need for a

‘‘better operational definition’’ (J. Grunig & Disbrow, 1977, p. 159).

The Reconceptualization of the Fourth Variable

Scholars have been looking at ways to improve the situational theory of publics by examining

antecedents of the independent variables, as well as by taking into consideration additional

independent variables (for an account of the latest theoretical developments, see Aldoory &

Sha, 2007).

Within this effort, Sha (2006) and Sriramesh, Moghan, and Weil (2007) have addressed the

opportunity to reestablish the referent criterion in terms of a cultural variable. In her article, Sha

addresses the predicting power of racioethnic diversity on problem recognition, level of involve-

ment, constraint recognition, and active and passive communication behaviors. She positions her

research in the field of intercultural communication, defined as the communication between an

organization and a specific public when that public identifies with a cultural group other than the

one with which the organization identifies. Cultural identity is seen here as identity developed in

relation to a racial or ethnic group. In particular, Sha points to the avowed identity—an identity

that is consciously asserted by the individual—and not an identity that is ascribed by the refer-

ence group to a person. She further specifies her definition by focusing on the salience of cultural

identity (i.e., its situational nature).

Individuals have several cultural identities; each one dominates the others in specific situa-

tions, thereby making it salient. Sha’s (2006) findings revealed that individuals who avow a


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

non-White racioethnic identity are more apt to recognize racioethnic problems, have a higher

level of involvement with those problems, and communicate more often about them. On the

other hand, Sha did not find any evidence of racioethnic identity having an effect on constraint

recognition. Sha suggested that her concept of racioethnic identity can be associated with

the referent criterion advanced by J. E. Grunig (1997)—particularly if it is referred to as the

reconceptualization suggested by J. E. Grunig himself in terms of schema and cross-situational

attitude.

It is interesting to note that J. E. Grunig’s (1977, 1982) findings concerning the referent cri-

terion indicated that its effect on communication behavior changes depending on the level of

involvement experienced by an individual. Highly involved people with a referent criterion tend

to seek and process less information, unless they are conservative; meanwhile, individuals with

low involvement who have a referent criterion, if they recognize the problem and do not feel

constrained in facing it, tend to seek and process more information. However, Sha’s (2006) data

suggested that individuals with a salient avowed racioethnic identity—in J. E. Grunig’s terms,

individuals with a referent criterion—tend to communicate more on issues that are racioethnic

in nature.

Sriramesh et al. (2007) analyzed the behavior of Singaporean consumers confronted with

poor customer service in the retail sector by applying the situational theory of publics. They

found that, despite a high level of problem recognition and involvement, unhappy retail clients

did not exhibit activist behaviors because of significant constraint recognition (the concept of

activist public has been discussed by J. E. Grunig, 1989, by Aldoory & Sha, 2007, and by

Kim, Ni, & Sha, 2008). The authors claim that this finding can be explained in cultural terms.

Asian cultures are characterized by collectivist values (Sriramesh & Vercic, 2003), which lead

individuals to be less willing to complain and thereby embarrass people. Furthermore, since

1965, Singapore authorities have systematically promoted a communitarian political philosophy,

which may also explain the reluctance of the respondents to be confrontational. Sriramesh et al.

concluded that culture should not be considered a constraint, but an additional variable—a refer-

ent criterion—because ‘‘humans are often oblivious to their own cultural idiosyncrasies, whereas

all the constraints identified in the literature on this theory only report perceived constraints’’

(p. 325). In other words, Sriramesh et al. appear to be in line with Sha’s (2006) conclusions;

referring to Rotheram and Phinney (1987), Sha claimed that culture ‘‘predicts individual beha-

viors regardless of situation’’ (2006, p. 60).

These recent contributions have reopened the debate about the role of the referent criterion in

situational communication behavior by claiming that cultural references may have an impact on

situational variables. This article further investigates this topic by exploring how cultural ethno-

centric bias influences journalists’ communication behavior. As mentioned earlier, journalists

are an appropriate public to investigate because information processing and seeking are crucial

characteristics in defining journalists’ profession. Furthermore, ethnocentricity—as described in

the following section—is a concept that has been widely investigated in academic research about

journalists’ behaviors. Weaver et al. (2007), referring to the work of Theodore Glasser, pointed

out that professionalism implies standardization and homogeneity, which can lead to ethnocen-

tric assumptions. Therefore, media scholars consider ethnocentricity not only as a news media

content influencer at the individual level (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996), but also an influencer

at the routine level and, in particular, through ‘‘news values’’ criteria—what Shoemaker

and Reese call the ‘‘audience-oriented routine’’ (p. 117). In the last 10 years, the concept of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

ethnocentricity has been largely used by media scholars analyzing how news media are covering

war and conflict situations. For example, Wolfsfeld, Frosh, and Awabdy (2008, p. 4) referred to

the ‘‘ethnocentric control over the flow of information’’ as a routine used to mobilize the public

in wartime. In this line of research, ethnocentricity is considered a relevant routine that contri-

butes, for example, to constantly reproducing national identities (Guo, Cheong, & Chen, 2007)

and representing the other as incomprehensible or immoral (Leung & Huang, 2007).

JOURNALISTS’ BEHAVIOR: THE ROLE OF SITUATIONAL COMMUNICATIONVARIABLES AND ETHNOCENTRISM

There is a broad tradition in the field journalism and mass communication concerning the factors

influencing journalists’ decision to cover specific topics (Donsbach, 2004; Starck & Soloski,

2007). Shoemaker and Reese (1996) provided an all-embracing theoretical model of the factors

influencing news media content. Their model of the hierarchy of influences on news media

brings together a body of research that tries to explain what influences news media content.

J. E. Grunig’s contribution can be traced back to this area of research, although he never

actively participated in it and his work has not been drawn on by news media content research-

ers. In fact, the application of the situational theory of publics to journalists was part of J. E.

Grunig’s extensive effort to test it in various professional settings (Aldoory & Sha, 2007).

This section first reviews how J. E. Grunig (1982, 1983) applied the situational model to ana-

lyze journalists’ decisions to cover specific topics. It then describes how journalism research

addresses the relevance of ethnocentrism in explaining journalists’ decisions concerning news

content.

Application of Situational Theory of Publics

Journalists and news media are a special type of public (J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984). In fact, as

gatekeepers, members of the news media control access to communication news media channels

that allow an organization to reach its publics. A news item has to go through ‘‘gates,’’ which

are governed by individuals ‘‘in power’’ to make the decision between ‘‘in’’ and ‘‘out’’ (White,

1950). As journalists are among those who decide whether to open the gate or not, they become

relevant publics for the organization; they set limits on the information available for other pub-

lics to seek and process (J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1994). Shoemaker and Reese (1996) added

another dimension to the concept of journalists as publics by pointing out that journalists

may see themselves either as simply disseminators, and therefore neutral reporters, of news or

as interpreters of news, adopting a participative role and therefore becoming, in J. E. Grunig’s

terms, an active public.

The more-or-less active role of journalists represents an issue that has acquired further rel-

evance in the new news media landscape. In fact, new news media, by undermining the idea that

journalists act as discrete gates and promoting the concept of multiple axes of power within the

news media (e.g., the news media and political actors; Williams & Della Carpini, 2004), redefine

the role of journalists as active participants to the construction of what Reese, Rutigliano, Hyun,

and Jeong (2007) referred to as consensual understandings built through interactive conversations

among different news media and the wired audience. Journalists’ gatekeeping role is therefore


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

re-conceptualized to the extent that journalists become one among several gatekeepers. They pro-

vide baseline content that is seen more as a starting point, rather than a final product (Singer,

2006, 2009). In this environment, journalists are increasingly less respectful of the objectivity

norm and adopt the behaviors of the online citizen journalists (Carpenter, 2008), becoming acti-

vist journalists (Niles, 2008).

Before continuing, it is important to stress that only the role of journalists in defining news

media content will be investigated. This does not mean that the individual role of journalists is

considered more important than the editors’ role. As extensively discussed in the news media

literature, editors may also have a ‘‘strong impact on content’’ (Shoemaker & Reese, 1996, p. 162).

J. E. Grunig (1983) demonstrated that journalists can be more or less interested in reporting

on specific issues due to different levels of involvement, problem recognition, and constraint rec-

ognition. In accordance with mass communication theory, J. E. Grunig referred to these three

independent variables with regard to the individual. According to J. E. Grunig, if journalists

are interested, they will look for information actively; if not, they will simply process infor-

mation they receive. In other words, journalists can report the news based on their own inves-

tigation or simply by relying on external news sources provided by organizations. J. E. Grunig’s

study also revealed that individual variables are not alone in explaining journalists’ behavior.

Reporters also make judgments about their readers’ communication behavior concerning the

news they are reporting. According to J. E. Grunig, journalists evaluate their readers’ problem

recognition, constraint recognition, and level of involvement—coorientation variables that can

be assimilated into institutional variables, as defined by Tannenbaum (1963), and added to

the three individual variables. Journalists seem to be differentiated into three groups: (a) journal-

ists who are motivated by their individual information needs, in J. E. Grunig’s term, activist

reporters; (b) journalists who also report based on their personal needs, but only if they corre-

spond to what they think their readers’ needs are; and (c) journalists who are driven by insti-

tutional variables and cover only the stories that are of interest to their audience, defined by

J. E. Grunig as apathetic.

These findings from J. E. Grunig (1983) complemented an earlier study performed by J. E.

Grunig (1982). Building on previous research, J. E. Grunig confirmed that journalists do not hold

the same attitude in all types of situations; on the contrary, they may change according to situation,

implying different opinions and behaviors. The study was designed to compare the relevance of

attitudes and communication behaviors of business students and journalism students with regard

to business issues. Students were questioned on nine issues. The main finding of the study was

that journalists are not really biased. ‘‘[The] perceptions of the situation explain communicator

behavior better than common attitudinal variables such as the ‘biases’ of journalists’’ (J. E.

Grunig, 1983, p. 605). Journalism students’ active communication behaviors were explained

primarily by situational variables, not biases. The analysis demonstrated that journalism students

were not interested in all aspects of business, but only those that had consequences to them.

Ethnocentrism as a Determinant of Journalists’ Behavior and News Content

News media are simultaneously contributing to the formation of ethnocentrism and being influ-

enced by it. News media provide the material to build common identities (Liebes & Curran,

1998). Today, social media further accentuate this process. In fact, as argued by Walker Rettberg


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

(2009), social media representation of user data, because of the use of mass customized tem-

plates, enhances the connection to larger cultural templates. It is from this sense of belonging

and identification among members of a group that ethnocentric attitudes emerge. Thus, ethno-

centrism is an expression of cultural identity. Ethnocentrism is a universal and natural condition

experienced by all cultures (Segall, 1979). Neuliep and McCroskey (1997) asserted that ethno-

centrism does not necessarily have a pejorative connotation; rather, it simply refers to the fact

that humans tend to view their own culture as the standard by which to evaluate other cultures

(Neuliep, Hintz, & McCroskey, 2005).

Given that news media express and portray (Tuchman, 1991) the (national or local) cultural

identity in which they operate, news media may apply ethnocentric frames. According to Ostgaard

(1965, p. 46), ‘‘The news media in any given country will tend to present the picture of the outside

world as seen through the ethnocentric eyes of the receiver of the news.’’ Galtung and Ruge

(1965) referred to the concept of ‘‘meaningfulness’’: News has to be meaningful to the receiver

in a way that could be ‘‘interpretable within’’ his or her ‘‘cultural framework’’ (p. 66). In addition,

Schulz (1976) included ethnocentrism in ‘‘macro level identification’’ and defined ethnocentrism

as the tendency of journalists and news media to prefer news that belongs to or involves their own

culture. Aronoff (1976), in his study ‘‘Placing Press Releases in Newspapers,’’ pointed to the spe-

cific case of local newspapers and the relevance of ‘‘proximity’’ news value. News with a ‘‘local

angle’’ is judged more positively than nonlocal news. According to Aronoff, a ‘‘local newspaper,

like no other medium, expresses the common experience of living in a particular place, of sharing

certain local needs and interests, and of facing certain local problems’’ (p. 50). Wilke and Rosen-

berger (1994) referred to the same phenomenon using the term regionalism. In their study of

foreign news coverage, they found that most news coming from extra-European press agencies

sent to Europe referred to events in Europe, thereby confirming the importance of the ethnocentric

selection criterion called regionalism—namely, ‘‘the preference given to the region in which the

service is disseminated—a common practice throughout the world’’ (Wilke & Rosenberger, 1994,

p. 423). Consequently, despite terminological and conceptual differences (e.g., proximity is usedto mean geographic nearness, whereas ethnocentrism refers to cultural proximity), scholars seem

to agree that news media and audiences tend to prefer news they can identify as being linked to

their local culture.

In Shoemaker and Reese’s (1996) five levels of influence of news media content model,

ethnocentrism belongs not only to the individual level, but also to the ideological level. In

fact, cultural frameworks driving society may have an influence on news making and journalists’

behavior (Tuchman, 1991). For instance, journalists’ ethnocentric behavior may be determined by

the ethnocentric attitude developed in society as a consequence of a diffused fear of losing one’s

cultural identity (Grant & Brown, 1995; LeVine & Campbell, 1972; Neuliep et al., 2005). Lull

(2000) stated that ‘‘people fear the loss of their cultural identity, because it gives coherence

and integrity to their lives’’ (p. 134). The news media system reacts to this fear through the loca-

lization and indigenization of news media and cultural products (Sreberny, 2000). For example,

local producers successfully compete with multinationals by providing localized alternatives to

differentiate themselves from the homogenized international news media products (Croteau &

Hoynes, 1997), such as the predominance of local telenovelas over American soap operas in

Brazil. Moreover, large international news media corporations adopt a local strategy by offering

locally customized news media products (Croteau & Hoynes, 1997). The influence of ethnocen-

trism at the ideological level is even more apparent in crisis situations, in which ethnocentrism


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

clearly reveals its cultural preservation function (Levi-Strauss, 1983). For instance, in their article

on news media behavior after September 11, Hutcheson et al. (2004) concluded that ‘‘ethnocen-

tric reporting has been found to be most acute in coverage of U.S. involvement in international

events, and seems likely to reflect nationalist themes in crisis situations in which there is a per-

ceived threat to national interests or national security’’ (p. 31).

RESEARCH MODELS

Journalism research has clearly shown that ethnocentrism plays a significant role in how news is

reported, as well as what news is reported. This second aspect makes the journalist public parti-

cularly appropriate for testing the impact of ethnocentrism on situational information-seeking

and information-processing behaviors.

The empirical part of this article explores whether ethnocentrism directly influences com-

munication behaviors or if, instead, it first influences problem recognition, level of involvement,

and constraint recognition. No empirical investigation on this specific aspect has yet been con-

ducted, although the issue concerning the causality has indirectly emerged in recent discussions.

For example, Sha (2006) stated that her study:

has a major implication for the situational theory of publics in that it supports the existence of a

fourth independent variable that must either precede problem recognition, level of involvement,

and constraint recognition, or operate with them to affect communication behavior. (p. 60)

Meanwhile, Sriramesh et al. (2007) stated that ‘‘cultural factors . . . played a significant role in

the constrained behavior of the respondents’’ (p. 307), keeping open the question of whether

the impact was through the recognition of the constraint or through the constrained communi-

cation behavior directly.

The empirical part of this article also investigates the impact of ethnocentrism on journalists’

communication behavior. Following Neuliep and McCroskey (1997), ethnocentrism is defined

as something that does not necessarily have a pejorative connotation—that is, humans tend to

view their own culture as the standard by which to evaluate other cultures. The discussion herein

investigates this impact by comparing three possible models in which we hypothesize the

following impact of ethnocentrism on journalists’ communication behavior (see Figure 1).

Model 1

H1M1: Situational drivers (i.e., problem recognition, constraint recognition, and level of

involvement) have a direct impact on active or passive communication behavior of journalists.

H2M1: Ethnocentrism has a direct impact on active or passive communication behavior of

journalists.

Model 2




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

H2M2: Ethnocentrism has an indirect impact on journalists’ communication behavior by first

influencing their situational drivers (i.e., their problem recognition, constraint recognition, and

level of involvement).

Model 3



H2M3: Ethnocentrism has a moderating effect on the impact of situational drivers (i.e., prob-

lem recognition, constraint recognition, and level of involvement) on journalists’ communication

behavior.

These three models are competitive in that we aim to determine which model is verified by

our empirical analysis. In addition, the three models will be tested by allowing for contemplation

of the role of the ethnocentric news value of the topic; here, ethnocentrism is the tendency of

journalists to identify or not identify with news that belongs to or involves their own culture

(Schulz, 1976). As J. Grunig and Disbrow (1997) discovered, albeit at a low rate of significance,

a referent criterion is of particular consequence for publics with low involvement. Incorporating

J. Grunig and Disbrow’s findings in hopes of increasing the significance of their results, this

study measures not only the situational involvement of the public, but also an a priori involve-ment that relates to the public’s level of identification with the issue. In the case of journalists,

this relates to the ethnocentric news value of the topic. Accordingly, topics with different ethno-

centric news value are integrated into the research.

METHOD

We conducted a survey among Swiss journalists operating in southern Switzerland. These

journalists serve as a fertile empirical context for this research because they are located in the

Swiss Italian enclave influenced by a strong ethnocentric regional culture (Ratti & Badan,

1986). We interviewed journalists about their communication behavior with regard to issues that

have a global character but also a potential link to the local Swiss reality. We built our survey in

two steps. In the first step, we identified a list of issues having global and regional character. In

the second step, we developed our survey to test how the ethnocentric bias of journalists in terms

of their region Ticino, might have influenced their communication behavior toward these issues.

In the next paragraph, we illustrate these two research steps.

Survey Preparation

To conduct the survey, we first had to identify a number of global and regional stories (topics) to

present to our local journalists. Stories with a global character have the potential to provoke low

a priori involvement of local journalists because such stories do not have regional character, and

consequently are not a source for journalists’ identification and attraction (i.e., these stories do

not have proximity news value for them). By including such stories in the questionnaire, our aim

was to assess whether journalists’ ethnocentric bias can influence their communication behavior


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

despite situational drivers that are typically activated by their situational involvement with the

story. However, we also needed to include in the questionnaire stories with both global and

regional character that had the potential to provoke high situational involvement of journalists,

so as to understand whether ethnocentric bias is also influential in this case.

The United Nations (UN) initiative ‘‘Ten Stories the World Should Hear More About

(2005)’’ provided a good list of global news media topics on which we could potentially survey

Swiss Italian journalists. Starting with this list, we developed a preliminary analysis to identify

which of the 10 UN stories had both global and regional character within the Swiss Italian

enclave. We developed a content analysis (Krippendorff, 2004; Neuendorf, 2002) of news cov-

ered within the main regional newspaper (Il Corriere del Ticino) and national television (broad-

casting regionally in the Italian language). Our intent was not to verify the effectiveness of the

UN initiative, but to qualify the regional character of the 10 UN global stories within our context

of study. Our starting point was as follows: Those issues that were not covered by local news

media have a strong global character, but those picked up by regional news media, and covered

by expressing in particular the regional relevance of this story, have both global and regional

character in our context of study.

To this end, we developed a syntax necessary for data acquisition (Yale & Gilly, 1988) and a

codebook for data analysis (Weber, 1985). We drew inspiration from Huang’s (2005) work on

coverage of the 10 UN stories by Chinese and American news media. The syntax included tags

on the story that we combined with ‘‘and,’’ ‘‘near 30 words,’’ or ‘‘not’’ (e.g., Somalia ‘‘and’’

UN; Somalia ‘‘w=30’’ UN; Somalia ‘‘not’’ UN). The codebook included 19 variables. The most

important variables were those that permitted us to analyze news based on the ways in which the

10 UN stories had potential news value for journalists: timeliness (recent events have higher

news value than earlier events); prominence (people in the public eye have higher news value

than common people); proximity (stories about events and situations in one’s home community

are more newsworthy than events that occur far away); human interest (stories cover events such

as crime, murder, sex, and violence, as well as soft news involving positive situations); conse-

quence (one event may evolve and generate future consequences); disaster (these events include

natural disasters as well as business disasters); progress (these are events that are not occasional

but progress over time); novelty (these stories involve the concept of innovation); conflict (this is

information that involves some kind of disagreement between two or more people), and magni-

tude (events that occur on a global scale have higher news value than those that occur on a

national or local scale). Given that our first priority with regard to news value was to identify

whether news was covered specifically by expressing a regional character, we modified Huang’s

original codebook by differentiating the news value proximity into two news values: ethnocen-

trism and proximity (Galtung & Ruge, 1965; Ostgaard, 1965; Schulz, 1976), where ethnocen-

trism refers to the cultural nearness of an event. Other variables in the codebook were

secondary for this research purpose, and helped us to understand how news about the 10 UN

stories was covered by local journalists (e.g., focus of article, emphasis of article, UN mention

in the news, sentiment of the mention). The third author of this article coded these preliminary

data; thus, this did not allow for an ‘‘agreement among interpreters’’ (Bauer & Gaskell, 2000,

p. 143). However, we established reliability in another way. According to Bauer (2000),

establishing reliability with only one coder implies that the unique coder conducts a second

interpretation after a time interval and does not include a formal test for results reliability.

A second analysis was conducted 1 month after the first analysis.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

We collected a total of 36 news stories on the 10 UN topics (27 from the local newspaper and

9 from regional television) during a 1-year period. As a result of this content analysis, we ident-

ified three topics with different characteristics in terms of proximity and ethnocentric news

values for Swiss Italian journalists, which provided good sets of scenarios for the survey. The

first story we selected to include in the questionnaire related to the war in Somalia and oppor-

tunities for peace. This story scored really low on both proximity and ethnocentric news values,

and low on other news values. Not surprisingly, it received little, or virtually no, coverage or

attention in the local news media. It is an appropriate topic to include in the survey because

it allows journalists to describe their communication behavior toward a story that is global

and has low a priori involvement for them as journalists. The second story covered violence

against women. Unlike the first, this second topic had high proximity and ethnocentric news

values (followed by news value, human interest, timeliness, progress, and novelty). The story

was addressed by the local news media as a global topic while embedding local reality. The last

topic, environment and health, was also addressed in both global and local terms, but the prox-

imity and ethnocentric news values were not as prominent as with the second topic (the most

frequently cited news values were progress and consequences, followed by timeliness, proxim-

ity, and ethnocentrism).

The Survey

Population. The population included a total of 574 individuals. Potential respondents were

identified in collaboration with the local journalists’ association, Associazione Ticinese deiGiornalisti, and two journalist labor unions, Sindacato Svizzero dei Mass Media and Comedia.The questionnaire was sent through traditional mail in a paper form. Of the 186 journalists (32.4

percent) who replied, 180 delivered usable answers. This response rate might be considered

good, compared to the typically lower response rates in mass communication surveys (Wimmer

& Dominick, 2006).

Structure of questionnaire. Closed-ended measures were used. In the first part of the ques-

tionnaire, we asked journalists to imagine that they receive a description of stories we selected

and are asked to indicate on what their communication behavior would be (e.g., whether they

would simply process the information or whether they would actively seek it). In the second part,

we asked journalists about the situational elements that might drive their communication beha-

vior for each story. In the third part, questions addressed journalists’ ethnocentrism. A set of

demographic questions was also included. The questionnaire, with a description of stories in

the survey, is provided in Appendix 1.

Measures. We operationalized our dependent variable, journalists’ communication beha-

vior, by taking inspiration form the work of J. E. Grunig (1983) and J. E. Grunig and Hunt

(1996). We asked about journalists’ propensity to process and seek information. For the former,

the following question was asked: ‘‘Suppose that you have to write an article on the following

topic: [short description of one of the topics, as presented earlier]. What is the degree of attention

that you would provide to a press release on this topic?’’ Participants responded using a 4-point

Likert scale, where 1 equaled no attention and 4 equaled a lot of attention. With regard to infor-

mation seeking, participants responded to the following: ‘‘On which measure would you be


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

prone to look for further information on this topic in order to write an article?’’ Respondents

again used a 4-point Likert scale. The communication behavior related to the three stories

was measured one after another. In the traditional research on the situational theory of publics,

scholars have built questionnaires with a set of at least four issues. In our case, three issues were

sufficient because of the rationale suggested by our preliminary phase: With three issues, we

already include in the survey a sufficient variety of issues to meet the requirements of the study.

For our independent variables, we built our measures as follows. We operationalized the

situational drivers, again drawing from J. E. Grunig (1983) and J. E. Grunig and Hunt

(1984). We measured journalists’ problem recognition, constraint recognition, and level of

involvement. For problem recognition, we asked, ‘‘Please indicate how often you stop to think

about each of the following three issues’’ (Likert scale from 1¼ never to 4¼ often). Journalistconstraint recognition was measured by asking, ‘‘As a journalist, do you think that you could do

something personally that would make a difference in the way the following issues are

approached (handled)? (Likert scale from 1¼ none to 4¼ great deal). Finally, we measured

journalists’ level of involvement by asking, ‘‘Please indicate to what extent each issue is impor-

tant to you personally’’ (Likert scale from 1¼ not at all to 4¼ a lot). In addition, we operatio-

nalized the level of journalists’ ethnocentrism by drawing on the scale developed by Neuliep and

McCroskey (1997). Journalists were asked, ‘‘Please indicate to which extent you agree with the

following statements (on a 5-point Likert scale from 1¼ total disagreement to 5¼ total agree-ment): (a) Other countries should model themselves after Ticino; (b) people in Ticino have just

about the best lifestyles of people anywhere; (c) most countries are backward in comparison to

Ticino; (d) most people would be happier if they lived like people in Ticino; (e) Ticino is a poor

example of how to run a country; (f) lifestyles in other countries are just as valid as those in

Ticino; (g) people in Ticino could learn a lot from people of other countries; (h) I enjoy learning

about the customs and values of other countries; (i) although different, most countries have an

equally valid value system (compared to Ticino); (j) people from other countries act strangely

and unusually when they come to Ticino; and (k) most people from other cultures just do not

know what is good for them. These items were introduced in the third part of the questionnaire.

Originally, the scale included more items; however, due to length constraints of the question-

naire, we shortened it. We pretested the questionnaire and selected items according to respon-

dents’ critiques on the scale.

Control variables. Demographics might reveal themselves to be important control variables

(see details of the demographics in Appendix 1). In fact, age and sex were previously considered

as explanations for a public’s communication behavior (Hamilton, 1992). Additional control vari-

ables specific to journalists, such as their institutional communication behavior, were introduced

in this study. According to J. E. Grunig (1983), journalists are a distinctive public in that they may

be guided specifically by their perceptions of their audience (i.e., the evaluation by journalists of

their readers’ problem recognition, constraint recognition, and level of involvement).

Type of analysis. Data were analyzed through a SEM analysis (Anderson & Gerbing,

1996, 1992; Joreskog, 1993; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993) using AMOS 6. Specifically, the

SEM principal factor reflective models (Jarvis, Mackenzie, & Podsakoff, 2003) were run.

Although previous studies on the situational theory of publics used mainly canonical correlation

analysis (Aldoory & Sha, 2007), we considered it appropriate to develop a SEM analysis

because our main aim was to identify the direct, indirect, or moderating effect of ethnocentrism.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

SEM is a statistical analysis that is regarded as appropriate for analyses featuring indirect, direct,

and moderating effects (Kline, 1998). Also, SEM is known for allowing a comparison of alter-

native models (Anderson & Gerbing, 1996, 1992; Joreskog, 1993; Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993).

Our mode of comparison was to test Model 1 and Model 2 in one measurement and structural

model, which tests the direct and indirect effects of ethnocentrism. After that, we tested in a third

model the moderation of ethnocentrism. The analysis was conducted with a reasonable sample

size—180 respondents—thereby meeting AMOS standards, which require at least 15 cases per

predictor (Bentler & Chou, 1987; Stevens, 1996) or a rate of 10:1 between the number of cases

and the free parameters (Kline, 1998).

RESULTS

Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation) and reliability of measures (Cronbach’s alpha),

presented in Table 1 (for the Somalia topic), Table 2 (for the violence against women topic), and

Table 3 (for the health and environment topic), indicated a significant relationship between jour-

nalists’ communication and situational drivers (at both the institutional and individual levels).

This seems to confirm the situational theory of publics, as well as the influence of institutional

situational drivers. However, a significant correlation between ethnocentrism’s items and the

other variables was not always evident, suggesting that ethnocentrism will perhaps not have a

relevant direct or indirect impact on journalists’ communication behavior. Moreover, the data

presented in the tables confirm that measure indicators are reliable. In this respect, besides

Cronbach’s alpha reported in Tables 1, 2 and 3, we verified measures running SEM measure-

ment models simultaneously with structural models. No factor loading of items in the measure-

ment models was below .30; also, the variance of items was always above .16. Goodness of Fit

Indexes (GFIs) of measurement models are sufficient or good. As the GFI’s correspond to those

of structural models we present them in Table 4, when we present our structural models. While

running our measurement models, we identified that four measurement items out of 16 were cor-

related, a sign of threat of common method bias. We addressed this issue through statistical rem-

edies suggested by Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff (2003) and Podsakoff and Organ

(1986). We conducted the Harman one-factor test (Harman, 1967). A principal component factor

analysis using varimax rotation was performed for each measure. Because all indicators loaded

on one factor that accounted for no more than 50% of the variance, the common method bias is

not a concern. Specifically, for measures on topic Somalia, one factor accounted for 17.8% of

variance; for the topic health and environment, one factor accounted for 18.7% of variance;

for the topic violence against women, one factor accounted for 16.9% of variance.

The data show that ethnocentrism does not influence journalists’ communication behavior—either directly or indirectly (see Table 4). Thus, Model 1 and Model 2 cannot be confirmed for

their H2M1 and H2M2. Significant evidence supported this conclusion. First, in none of the

issues investigated did ethnocentrism’s impact appear to be significantly different from zero; only

the situational drivers explain the communication behavior of journalists (thus, H1M1 and H1M2

are confirmed). Second, the indirect effect of ethnocentrism explained either none of the variance

or a very low percentage (2% or 1%, respectively). These results are supported by global fit

measures—GFIs—which are sufficient. These global fit measures certify the degree of appropri-

ateness and truthfulness of a model by providing the overall model value’s confirmation of results


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

TABLE

1

DescriptiveStatistics,Cronbach’s

Alpha,andCorrelationsBetweenVariablesforTopic

Somalia

Mean

SD

Cronbach’s

Alpha

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

17

18

19

1.Info

proc.

2.89

.756

.80

1

2.Info

seek.

2.85

.844

.677��

1

3.Probl.

Rec.

2.37

.800

.60

.357��

.342��

1

4.Con.Rec.

2.22

.935

.296��

.262��

.288��

1

5.Lev.Inv.

2.82

.815

.496��

.409��

.447��

.280��

1

6.Inst.Pro.

Rec

1.79

.586

.65

.201��

.197��

.178�

.255��

.096

1

7.Inst.Con.

Rec.

2.21

.921

.342��

.350��

.302��

.585��

.206��

.269��

1

8.Inst.Lev.

Inv.

1.85

.689

.258��

.240��

.296��

.337��

.170�

.560��

.414��

1

9.Ethno1

2.20

.890

.66

.066

.057

.059

.063

–.027

.165�

.041

.012

1

10.Ethno2

2.09

1.007

.168�

.049

.102

.135

.115

.145

.162�

.052

.376��

1

11.Ethno3

2.75

1.284

–.082

–.107

–.032

.073

–.056

.095

–.087

–.062

.311��

.284��

1

12.Ethno4

3.25

1.165

–.003

.024

.084

.041

–.023

.101

–.027

.012

.214��

.182�

.494��

1

13.Ethno5

3.39

.977

.083

.052

.006

–.100

–.161�

.035

–.074

.022

.265��

.181�

.159�

.257��

1

14.Ethno6

2.64

1.135

–.091

–.012

–.041

.029

–.160�

–.012

–.012

.030

.058

.129

.038

.012

–.047

1

15.Ethno7

1.60

.657

–.159�

–.100

–.037

–.049

–.117

.105

–.170�

–.010

.067

.071

.061

.111

.125

.258��

1

16.Ethno8

1.34

.563

–.188�

–.246��

–.115

–.175�

–.227��

–.072

–.269��

–.025

.045

.055

.019

.134

.178�

.171�

.299��

1

17.Ethno9

1.63

.693

–.122

–.076

–.023

–.073

–.121

.017

–.144

–.059

.075

.176�

.133

.110

–.029

.297��

.395��

.302��

1

18.Ethno10

2.29

1.102

–.163�

–.182�

–.027

.014

–.176�

.042

–.070

.000

.147

.067

.202��

.142

–.015

.189�

.079

.196��

.195��

1

19.Ethno12

2.32

1.253

.068

–.023

.132

.103

.052

.097

.004

.114

.117

.119

.214��

.090

–.030

.142

.175�

.050

.271��

.252��

–.144

� p<0.05.��p<0.001.

107

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

TABLE2



Health

andEnvironment

Mean

SD

Cronbach’s

Alpha

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

17

18

1.Info

proc.

3.33

.634

.86

1

2.Info

seek.

3.28

.703

.764��

1

3.Probl.

Rec.

3.31

.664

.59

.469��

.565��

1

4.Con.Rec.

2.81

.799

.215��

.296��

.346��

1

5.Lev.Inv.

3.63

.507

.509��

.423��

.399��

.295��

1

6.Inst.Pro.

Rec

3.12

.784

.62

.233��

.252��

.250��

.316��

.130

1

7.Inst.Con.

Rec.

3.02

.771

.240��

.323��

.280��

.417��

.270��

.178�

1

8.Inst.Lev.

Inv.

3.17

.705

.325��

.310��

.287��

.375��

.299��

.636��

.286��

1

9.Ethno1

2.20

.890

.66

.044

.002

–.046

.101

–.138

.029

.002

.046

1

10.Ethno2

2.09

1.007

–.029

–.099

.048

.154�

.033

–.005

.145

–.013

.376��

1

11.Ethno3

2.75

1.284

–.061

–.062

–.006

.137

–.084

.056

.064

–.031

.311��

.284��

1

12.Ethno4

3.25

1.165

–.092

–.019

.096

.025

–.080

–.054

.107

–.115

.214��

.182�

.494��

1

13.Ethno5

3.39

.977

–.096

–.066

.041

–.025

–.018

.090

.026

.107

.265��

.181�

.159�

.257��

1

14.Ethno6

2.64

1.135

–.150�

–.135

.036

.143

–.120

.005

–.083

.037

.058

.129

.038

.012

–.047

1

15.Ethno7

1.60

.657

–.161�

–.128

–.010

–.048

–.131

.052

–.162�

–.072

.067

.071

.061

.111

.125

.258��

1

16.Ethno8

1.34

.563

–.214��

–.149�

–.051

–.227��

–.194��

–.059

–.268��

–.230��

.045

.055

.019

.134

.178�

.171�

.299��

1

17.Ethno9

1.63

.693

–.110

–.115

–.029

–.016

–.158�

–.020

–.197��

–.055

.075

.176�

.133

.110

–.029

.297��

.395��

.302��

1

18.Ethno10

2.29

1.102

–.165�

–.101

.072

.000

–.183�

–.179�

.025

–.186�

.147

.067

.202��

.142

–.015

.189�

.079

.196��

.195��

1

19.Ethno12

2.32

1.253

.063

–.045

–.027

–.033

–.042

–.067

–.025

–.022

.117

.119

.214��

.090

–.030

.142

.175�

.050

.271��

.252��

� p<0.05.��p<0.001.

108

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

TABLE

3



ViolenceAgainstWomen

Mean

SD

Cronbach’s

Alpha

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

17

18

1.Info

proc.

3.32

.672

.84

1

2.Info

seek.

3.26

.726

.738��

1

3.Probl.

Rec.

3.29

.650

.50

.378��

.412��

1

4.Con.Rec.

2.86

.755

.143

.199��

.150�

1

5.Lev.Inv.

3.57

.580

.468��

.437��

.520��

.155�

1

6.Inst.Pro.

Rec

2.80

.654

.60

.180�

.224��

.239��

.286��

.174�

1

7.Inst.Con.

Rec.

3.05

.848

.298��

.318��

.257��

.365��

.344��

.212��

1

8.Inst.Lev.

Inv.

2.87

.693

.207��

.199��

.181�

.287��

.223��

.550��

.321��

1

9.Ethno1

2.20

.890

.66

.028

–.020

.107

.168�

.002

.083

.075

.069

1

10.Ethno2

2.09

1.007

.065

–.047

.066

.149�

.105

.058

.173�

.169�

.376��

1

11.Ethno3

2.75

1.284

–.076

–.116

–.097

.116

–.164�

.027

.037

–.010

.311��

.284��

1

12.Ethno4

3.25

1.165

.069

.056

–.115

.051

–.084

–.056

.056

–.010

.214��

.182�

.494��

1

13.Ethno5

3.39

.977

.098

.062

.067

–.023

.077

.122

–.025

.100

.265��

.181�

.159�

.257��

1

14.Ethno6

2.64

1.135

–.068

–.061

–.014

.084

–.011

–.044

–.126

–.003

.058

.129

.038

.012

–.047

1

15.Ethno7

1.60

.657

.023

.063

.006

–.056

–.062

.067

–.217��

–.088

.067

.071

.061

.111

.125

.258��

1

16.Ethno8

1.34

.563

–.113

–.121

–.156�

–.203��

–.174�

.048

–.275��

–.073

.045

.055

.019

.134

.178�

.171�

.299��

1

17.Ethno9

1.63

.693

–.081

–.076

–.013

–.035

–.112

.026

–.102

–.030

.075

.176�

.133

.110

–.029

.297��

.395��

.302��

1

18.Ethno10

2.29

1.102

–.096

–.109

.049

–.024

–.123

–.059

.062

–.082

.147

.067

.202��

.142

–.015

.189�

.079

.196��

.195��

1

20.Ethno12

2.32

1.253

.033

–.034

.057

–.063

–.125

–.052

–.026

–.030

.117

.119

.214��

.090

–.030

.142

.175�

.050

.271��

.252��

� p<0.05.��p<0.001.

109

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

on the path value’s reliability and validity, as previously illustrated. As indicted in Table 4, the

difference between chi-square and degree of freedom is appropriate (it is never more than three

times); the identified models are appropriate in the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and

Browne-Cudeck Criterion (BCC) theoretical indexes values are lower than the saturated

ones—indicating that the models have a high informative value with regard to the theoretical con-

cepts under scrutiny. The Adjusted Goodness of Fit Index is sufficient as near or higher to the

criterion of appropriateness (.95). The value of the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation

(RMSEA) is appropriate (below the maximum level of .80 though not excellent as always higher

than.050). Finally, the Root Mean Square Residual (RMR) is good (lower to the limit value of

.80) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) are also sufficient (near to the limit value of .90).

Following Yang-Wallentin, Schmidt, Davidov, and Bamberg’s (2003) advice, additional

effects among variables—such as moderation effects—can be identified through a multigroup

comparison analysis; in the current case, a moderating effect of ethnocentrism can be identified

by performing a comparison of those respondents who have a high ethnocentric tendency and

those who have a low ethnocentric tendency. We divided respondents into high- versus

low-ethnocentric tendency by splitting our sample in two groups: those who responded com-pletely disagree, not at all, or a little as having low-ethnocentrism tendency; those who

responded a bit and absolutely agree as having high-ethnocentrism tendency.

According to the findings (see Table 5), depending on the issue, ethnocentrism might or

might not moderate the impact of the situational drivers on journalists’ communication behavior.

This confirms partially Model 3: H1M3 is confirmed and H2M3 is only partially confirmed.

Only on the issue regarding Somalia did high ethnocentrism significantly increase the impact

of the situational drivers on journalists’ communication behavior (multiple group comparison

TABLE 4

Unsignificant Direct=Indirect Impact of Journalists’ Ethnocentrism on their Communication Behavior

bsituational

drivers

bEthnocentrism R2

Chi2=

Df GFI AGFI RMSEA RMR CFI

AIC

(AIC)

BCC

(BCC)

Topic Somalia

Journalist’s com.

behavior

.73�� –.06 .55 1 .960 .961 .060 .077 .91 236

(272)

244

(300)

Situational drivers — –.24 .06

Topic Health and

environment

Journalist’s com.

behavior

.80�� – .18 .71 1 .944 .939 .070 .069 .89 260

(272)

268

(300)


Topic Violence

against women

Journalist’s com.

behavior

.70�� .02 .47 1 .953 .938 .058 .074 .90 255

(272)

263

(300)


Note. GFI¼Goodness of Fit Index. AGFI¼Adjusted Goodnes of Fit Index. RMSEA¼Root Mean Square Error of

Approximation. RMR¼Root Mean Square Residual. CFI¼Comparative Fit Index.�p< .050. ��p< .010. ��p< .001.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

test¼ 4.266, p< .050). For the other two issues, no significant difference was identified

(multiple group comparison test¼ .985, p> .050 and .066, p> .050). Strong GFIs (always, inTable 5) confirm these findings. Comparatively speaking, these GFIs are much better than those

resulting from the test of H2M1 and H2M2, confirming that ethnocentrism has more a moder-

ating than a direct or indirect influence: RMSEA are excellent (.000, Topic 1; .049, Topic 2;

.035, Topic 3), RMR are also very low (.025, Topic 1; .014, Topic 2; .021, Topic 3); AIC

and BCC of default models are always lower than the one of saturated models; CFI are also very

good (.988, Topic 1; .989, Topic 2; .997, Topic 3). These results were based on a group com-

parison that did not carry the problem of group size bias. Indeed, the group with a low ethno-

centric bias (99 people) was not the only group with a reduced difference from the group with a

high ethnocentric bias (81 people); as the group with the low ethnocentric bias was bigger, the

idea that previous results were influenced by a bias due to group size can be excluded.

Finally, the findings demonstrated that the control variables—demographics and institutional

situational drivers—do not have significant moderating effects on our results. This confirms that

what we found out is not subject to any bias due to people’s age, sex, or perception of insti-

tutional situational driver. Ethnocentrism’s moderator effect is only significant for the Somalia

issue. Institutional situational drivers, on the other hand, had an indirect effect on all three topics,

as well as a direct effect on the health and environment topic. However, these findings were

supported by bad GFI values, as shown in Table 6. This is why we can assert that our control

variables do not have significant effects.

TABLE 5

How Ethnocentrism Increases the Impact of Situational Drivers on Journalists’ Communication Behavior

bSituational

drivers R2

Model

comparison

Chi2=

Df GFI AGFI RMSEA RMR CFI

AIC

(AIC)

BCC

(BCC)

Topic Somalia

Journalist’s com.

Behavior (Ethno low)

.62�� .39 4.266� 1 .984 .939 .000 .025 .998 51

(55)

54 (56)

Journalist’s com.

Behavior (Ethno high)

.76�� .58

Topic Health and

environment

Journalist’s com.


.76�� .57 .985 1 .976 .908 .049 .014 .989 55

(54)

58 (57)

Journalist’s com.


.89�� .79

Topic Violence against

women

Journalist’s com.


.65�� .43 .066 1 .978 .918 .035 .021 .997 53

(51)

57 (54)

Journalist’s com.


.76�� .57




Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

The findings demonstrated that an ethnocentric bias neither directly nor indirectly affects situa-

tional communication behaviors; rather, it simply has a moderating effect. However, this is true

only when journalists actively investigate an issue that—without a high ethnocentric news

value—is related to worldwide realities with no local connotations and thus is not a source of

identification for them. These results are supported by the following evidence. Journalists

exposed to the Somalia scenario were likely to be more active in seeking and processing infor-

mation on this topic given that their strong ethnocentric bias toward their own regional culture

increased their level of involvement and problem recognition while lowering their constraint rec-

ognition. Meanwhile, these same journalists, despite having the same high ethnocentric bias,

were not influenced to be more active when exposed to scenarios concerning topics related to

their culture, such as violence against women or health and environment scenarios. This result

indicated that, when journalists identify with a topic, their communication behavior is influenced

only by their situational drivers; meanwhile, when they do not identify with a topic, their com-

munication behavior is influenced by their ethnocentric view of the reality as well.

These findings contribute to clarifying what was suggested by Sha (2006) and Sriramesh et al.

(2007), casting light on the nature of the cultural influence on communication behaviors. A refer-

ent criterion, as reconceptualized by J. E. Grunig (1997), Sha (2006), and Srirmesh et al. (2007),

exists: People’s views of different situations and the problem generated by these situations are

influenced by their worldview (Sha, 2006) and their schema (J. E. Grunig, 1997). In our case,

this worldview, which is independent due to the situation in which publics live, refers to an eth-

nocentric lens. By clarifying this aspect, these findings pointed in a similar direction as J. Grunig

and Disbrow (1977)—that is, publics with a referent criterion may be more active when their

involvement with the issue is low. These authors further determined that only a low significance

supported their findings in this direction. This study indicated that this might have occurred

TABLE 6

Control Variables—How Journalists Institutional Situational Drivers Matter Indirectly and Partially Directly

bSituational

drivers

bInstitutional

situational

drivers R2

Chi2=

Df GFI AGFI RMSEA RMR

AIC

(AIC)

BCC

(BCC)

Somalia

Journalist’s com. behavior .76�� .00 .57 4 .917 .825 .141 .075 115

(72)

117 (75)

Situational drivers — .56�� .31

Health and environment

Journalist’s com. behavior .52�� .22� .40 6 .875 .750 .169 .067 146

(72)

148(75)


Violence against women

Journalist’s com. behavior .68�� .04 .47 3 .939 .871 .106 .052 89

(72)

91 (75)





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

because the previous authors measured involvement toward an issue only according to situa-

tional involvement. Indeed, our study, instead, found a high significance to support the same

finding. Beyond measuring the situational involvement, nonsituational low involvement was

also considered—namely, the journalists’ low identification toward a news item given the low

a priori ethnocentric character of the news.

The implications of these findings relate to a deeper understanding of the situational com-

munication behavior of publics. According to the situational theory of publics, stakeholders

might be best segmented into active or nonactive publics given their high problem recognition,

low constraint recognition, and high level of involvement. Moreover, as this study has demon-

strated, low a priori involvement in an issue—in the current case, low identification with an

issue—might be relevant as it might increase the publics’ situational drivers toward the issue

by activating an ethnocentric point of view on the issue. Based on the results, it can be deter-

mined how a cultural a priori characteristic of a public—that is, independent from the situ-

ation—might bring the public to be more active in situational terms. This knowledge leads to

new managerial and theoretical insights as it yields an understanding that a segmentation of sta-

keholders nested into publics (J. E. Grunig et al., 1992) might be enriched and further elaborated

by considering that publics are best segmented not only according to contingent characteristics,

but also according to cultural characteristics related to their cultural identity.

In conclusion, the considerations presented herein should be regarded in light of the study’s

limitations. First, traditionally the situational theory’s independent variables were measured using

a five-point scale. We measured them with a four-point scale as previous studies pointed out that

Swiss respondents tend to choose the center of the scale more than in other countries. Although we

had this justification, this change in the operationalization may have affected the comparability of

our results with previous research on situational theory. Second, the findings should be considered

within the study’s context because only one type of public and only one regional context were

examined; future efforts should develop additional research in other local contexts—beyond the

Swiss one—and among other types of publics—beyond journalists—so as to provide robustness

to the current findings and considerations. It can be presumed that results from journalists might be

true for other publics in other contexts. For example, reality demonstrates that an ethnocentric bias

might be intrinsic within activists who oppose global companies. The Austrian mobilization

against Starbucks (Illia & Lurati, 2008) demonstrated that local activists were well informed

and active against the opening of the first Starbucks cafe. The next step will be to see at which

point activists’ situational drivers, as well as low identification with the new Starbucks coffee cul-

ture, activates their ethnocentric point of view, thereby increasing their level of involvement and

problem recognition and lowering their constraint recognition toward the Starbucks entrance.

Moreover, the use of a single instrument to collect all variables poses the threat of common

method bias. To address this and assure construct validity, both the procedural and statistical rem-

edies suggested by Podsakoff et al. (2003), Schriesheim (1979), and Podsakoff and Organ (1986)

were applied. Procedures included different labels in the scales and pretest. Statistically, we fol-

lowed the procedure suggested by Anderson and Gerbing (1988) and we conducted Confirmatory

Factor Analysis (CFA) to test whether there were in fact three empirically distinct constructs.

Well-fitting models indicate that a single factor (subject to common method bias) does not

account for all the covariance among measures. We thus ran three separate sets of CFAs to deter-

mine the factor structure of the antecedents, results, and all self-report measures combined. GFIs

were definitely better for the models where we consider the existence of the three empirically


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

distinct constructs given by our two independent variables and dependent one. Thus, results of the

CFAs indicate that each variable is an empirically distinct construct and attenuates concerns that

common method bias are driving the results of this study, certifying construct validity.

In addition, this study did not elaborate on the results concerning journalists as a specific pub-

lic. The analysis of control variables provided insights into how the news media in particular

behave as a public; the degree to which journalists believe in making a difference is strictly

related to their belief that people might make a difference when appropriately informed. The

GFIs’ reliability and truthfulness of direct and indirect effects of situational drivers on journal-

ists’ communication behavior increased. Given that the theoretical focus is not on journalists, no

elaborate analysis in this direction was performed and no comments were made on these prom-

ising findings. Nevertheless, moving in this direction might help explain how journalists behave

not only according to the editorial context (Shoemaker & Mayfield, 1987), but also according to

their individual drivers. Journalists consider the newsworthiness of an item (Buckalew, 1969=70;Galtung & Ruge, 1965), as well as their perceptions of their readers (Aronoff, 1976).

Finally, the empirical setting limited the ability to introduce other important control variables,

such as educational background of respondents or newspaper belongingness, into the research.

These elements were not included for confidentiality and ethical purposes, as respondents’ par-

ticipation was assured only through a specific privacy agreement. For the purposes of this

research, it might have been relevant to test how educational background and newspaper belong-

ingness confuted or confirmed the results. Thus, future research should not only provide robust-

ness to the results herein, as previously specified, but also provide further validity when adding

other important theoretical variables that might impact the research design.

REFERENCES

Aldoory, L., & Sha, B.-L. (2007). The situational theory of publics. Practical applications, methodological challenges,

and theoretical horizons. In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communicationmanagement challenges for the next generation (pp. 339–355). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modelling in practice: A review and recommended

two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.

Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1996). Assumptions and comparative strength of the two-step approach. In C. Fornell

& Y. Yi (Eds.), Sociological methods and research (pp. 231–333).

Aronoff, C. E. (1976). Predictors of success in placing releases in newspapers. Public Relations Review, 2, 43–57.

Bauer, M. W., & Gaskell, G. (Eds.). (2000). Qualitative researching with text, image and sound – A practical handbook.

London: Sage.

Bendheim, L. C., Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1998). Determining best practice in corporate–stakeholder relations

using data envelopment analysis. Business and Society, 37(3), 306–338.

Bentler, P. M., & Chou, C. P. (1987). Practical issues in structural modeling. Socio Method Research, 16, 78–117.Buckalew, J. (1969=70). News elements and selection by television news editors. Journal of Broadcasting, 14, 47–54.

Carpenter, S. (2008). How online citizen journalism publications and online newspapers utilize the objectivity standard

and rely on external sources. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(3), 531–548.

Carter, R. F. (1966). Cognitive discrepancies and communication behavior. Paper presented to the Association for

Education in Journalism, Iowa City, IA, June 1966.

Choi, Y., & Cameron, G. T. (2005). Overcoming ethnocentrism: The role of identity in contingent practice of

international public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17, 171–189.

Clarkson, M. B. E. (1995). A stakeholder framework for analysing and evaluating corporate social performance.

Academy of Management Review, 20(1), 92–117.

Croteau, D., & Hoynes, W. (1997).Media=society. Industries, images, and audiences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

Cunningham, W. A., Nezlek, J. B., & Banaji, M. R. (2004). Implicit and explicit ethnocentrism: Revisiting the ideologies

of prejudice. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(10), 1332–1346.

Davenport, K. (2000). Corporate citizenship: A stakeholder approach for defining corporate social performance and

identifying measures for assessing it. Business and Society, 39(2), 210–219.

Donsbach, W. (2004). Psychology of news decisions. Factors behind journalists’ professional behavior. Journalism, 5(2),131–157.

Esman, M. J. (1972). The elements of institution building. In W. J. Eaton (Ed.), Institution building and development (pp.

19–40). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Galtung, J., & Ruge, M. H. (1965). The structure of foreign news. The presentation of the Congo, Cuba and Cyprus crises

in four Norwegian newspapers. Journal of Peace Research, 2(1), 4–91.

Grant, P. R., & Brown, R. (1995). From ethnocentrism to collective protest: Responses to relative deprivation and threats

to social identity. Social Psychology Quarterly, 58(3), 195–212.Grunig, J., & J. Disbrow (1977). Developing a probabilistic model for communications decision making. Communication

Research, 4, 145–168.

Grunig, J. (1977). A situational theory of Environmental issues, publics, and activists. In L. A. Grunig (Ed.),Monographs

in Environmental Education and Environmental Studies: Environmental Activism Revisited: The changing nature ofcommunication through organizational public relations, special ineterest groups and the mass media. Troy, OH:

North American Association for Environmental Education.

Grunig, J. E. (1968). Information, entrepreneurship, and economic development: A study of the decision-making process

of Colombian Latifundistas. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin, Madison.

Grunig, J. E. (1982). Developing economic education programs for the press. Public Relations Review, 8, 43–62.

Grunig, J. E. (1983). Washington reporter publics of corporate public affairs programs. Journalism Quarterly, 60, 603–614.

Grunig, J. E. (1984). Organizations, environments, and models of public relations. Public Relations Research & Education,1, 6–29.

Grunig, J. E. (1989). Sierra Club study shows who become activists. Public Relations Review, 15, 3–24.Grunig, J. E. (1992). Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Grunig, J. E. (Ed.). (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management. Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates.

Grunig, J. E. (1997). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges and new research. In D. Moss,

T. MacManus & D. Veri (Eds.), Public relations research: An international perspective (pp. 3–46). London:

International Thomson Business.

Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1994). Public relations techniques. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace College.

Grunig, J. E., & Repper, F. C. (1992). Strategic management, publics, issues. In J. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in

public relations and communication management (pp. 117–158). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Guo, Z., Cheong, W. H., & Chen, H. (2007). Nationalism as public imagination: The media’s routine contribution to

latent and manifest nationalism in China. International Communication Gazette, 69, 467–480.

Hamilton, P. K. (1992). Grunig’s situational theory: A replication, application, and extension. Journal of Public RelationsResearch, 4, 123–149.

Harman, H. H. (1967). Modern factor analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Huang, N. C. (2005). Comparing U.S. and China media coverage of the United Nations and ‘‘Top Ten Stories the World

Should Know More About.’’ Unpublished research paper.

Hutcheson, J., Domke, D., Billeaudeaux, A., & Garland, P. (2004). U.S. national identity, political elites, and a patriotic

press following September 11. Political Communication, 21, 27–50.

Illia, L., & Lurati, F. (2006). Stakeholder perspectives on organizational identity: Searching for a relationship approach.

Corporate Reputation Review, 8(4), 293–304.Illia, L., & Lurati, F. (2008). Starbucks—The challenge of the global market: The entrance into the Swiss market.

Madrid, Spain: Instituto de Empresa.

Jarvis, C. B., Mackenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). Critical review of construct indicators and measurement

model misspecification in marketing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(3), 199–218.Jonker, J., & Foster, D. (2002). Stakeholder excellence? Framing the evolution and complexity of a stakeholder

perspective of the firm. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environment Management, 9(4), 187–195.

Joreskog, K. G. (1993). Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modelling with the SIMPLIS command language.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kelly, W., Masumoto, T., & Gibson, D. (2002). Kisha kurabu and koho: Japanese media relations and public relations.

Public Relations Review, 28, 265–281.

Kim, J.-N., Ni, L., & Sha, B.-L. (2008). Breaking down the stakeholder environment: A review of approaches to the

segmentation of publics. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 85(4), 751–768.

Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Leung, C. C.M.,&Huang,Y. (2007). The paradox of journalistic representation of the other: The case of SARS coverage on

China and Vietnam by Western-led English-language media in five countries. Journalism, 8, 675–697.

Levi-Strauss, C. (1983). Le Regard Eloigne. Paris, France: Plon.

Levine, R., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitude and groups behavior. London,UK: John Wiley.

Liebes, T., & Curran, J. (1998). Media, ritual, and identity. London, UK: Routledge.

Lull, J. (2000). Media, communication, culture. A global approach. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: Defining

the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853–886.

Neuendorf, L. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Neuliep, J. W., Hintz, S. M., & McCroskey, J. C. (2005). The influence of ethnocentrism in organizational contexts:

Perceptions of interviewee and managerial attractiveness, credibility, and effectiveness. Communication Quarterly,

53(1), 41–56.

Neuliep, J. W., & McCroskey, J. C. (1997). The development of a U.S. and generalized ethnocentrism scale. Communi-

cation Research Reports, 14(4), 385–398.Niles, R. (2008). Newsrooms must get active to survive the economic meltdown. Online Journalism Review. www.ojr.

org/ojr/people/robert/200812/1605/.

Ostgaard, E. (1965). Factors influencing the flow of news. Journal of Peace Research, 2(1), 39–63.

Podsakoff, P., & Organ, D. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal ofManagement, 12, 531–544.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method bias in behavioral

research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,88(5), 9–903.

Ratti, R., & Badan, M. (1986). Identita in cammino. Bellinzona Casagrande: Coscienza Svizzera.

Reese, S. D., Rutigliano, L., Hyun, K., & Jeong, J. (2007). Mapping the blogosphere. Professional and citizen-based

media in the global news arena. Journalism, 8(3), 235–261.

Rotherham, M. J., & Phinney, J. S. (1987). Introduction: Definitions and perspectives in the study of children’s ethnic

socialization. In J. S. Phinney & M. J. Rotherham (Eds.), Children’s ethnic socialization: Pluralism and development(pp. 10–28). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., & Blair, J. D. (1991). Strategies for assessing and managing organizational

stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 61–75.Schriesheim, C. A. (1979). The similarity of individual-directed and group directed leader behavior descriptions.

Academy of Management Journal, 22, 345–355.

Schulz, W. (1976). Die Konstruktion von Realitat in den Nachrichtenmedien. Analyse der aktuellen Berichterstattung.

Freiburg, Munchen: Alber.

Segall, M. H. (1979). Cross-cultural psychology: Human behaviour in a global perspective. Monterey, CA: Brooks=Cole.

Sha, B. (2006). Cultural identity in the segmentation of publics: An emerging theory of intercultural public relations.

Journal of Public Relations Research, 18, 45–65.

Shoemaker, P. J., & Mayfield, E. K. (1987). Building a theory of news content: A synthesis of current approaches.

Journalism Monographs, 103(25), 2–31.

Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1996).Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content (2nd ed.).

White Plains, NY: Longman.

Singer, J. B. (2006). Stepping back from the gate: Online newspaper editors and the co-production of content in

campaign 2004. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 83(2), 265–280.

Singer, J. B. (2009). Role call: 2008 campaign and election coverage on the Web sites of leading U.S. newspapers.

Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(4), 827–844.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

Sreberny, A. (2000). The global and the local in international communications. In J. Curran & M. Gurevitch (Eds.),Massmedia and society (pp. 337–354). London, UK: Arnold.

Sriramesh, K., Moghan, S., & Lim Kwok Wei, D. (2007). The situational theory of publics in a different cultural setting:

Consumer publics in Singapore. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(4), 307–332.

Sriramesh, K., & Vercic, D. (2003). The global public relations handbook: Theory, research, and practice. Mahwah, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Sriramesh, K., & Vercic, D. (2009). The mass media and public relations. In K. Sriramesh & D. Vercic (2009). The

global public relations handbook (pp. 62–78). New York, NY: Routledge.

Sriramesh, K., & White, J. (1992). Societal culture and public relations. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public

relations and communication management (pp. 507–614). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Stevens, J. P. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Tannenbaum, P. (1963). Communication of science information. Science, 140, 579–583.Tuchman, G. (1991). Media institutions. Qualitative methods in the study of news. In K. B. Jensen & N. W. Jankowski (Eds.),

A handbook of qualitative methodologies for mass communication research (pp. 108–120). London, UK: Routledge.

United Nations (2005). Ten Stories the World Should Hear More About, http://www.un.org/events/tenstories/06/index.

asp?storyID=05.

Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. (1997). Quality of management and quality of stakeholder relations. Are they synony-

mous? Business and Society, 36(3), 250–279.

Walker Rettberg, J. (2009). ‘‘Freshly generated for you, and Barack Obama’’: How social media represent your life.

European Journal of Communication, 24, 451–466.

Weaver, D. H., Beam, R. A., Brownlee, B. J., Voakes, P. S., & Wilhoit, G. C. (2007). The American Journalist in the

21st Century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Weber, R. P. (1985). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

White, D. M. (1950). The gatekeeper: A case study in the selection of news. Journalism Quarterly, 27, 383–390.

Wilke, J., & Rosenberger, B. (1994). Importing foreign news: A case study of the German service of the Associated

Press. Journalism Quarterly, 71(2), 421–432.

Williams, B. A., & Delli Carpini, M. X. (2004). Monica and Bill all the time and everywhere: The collapse of gatekeep-

ing and angenda setting in the new media environment. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(9), 1208–1230.

Wimmer, R. D., & Dominick, J. R. (2006). Mass media research: An introduction (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson

Wadsworth.

Winn, M. I. (2001). Building stakeholder theory with a decision modeling methodology. Business and Society, 40(2),

133–166.

Wolfsfeld, G., Frosh, P., & Awabdy, M. T. (2008). Covering death in conflicts: Coverage of the second intifada on Israeli

and Palestinian television. Journal of Peace Research, 45, 401–417.Yale, L., & Gilly, M. C. (1988). Trends in advertising research: A look at the content of marketing oriented journals from

1976 to 1985. Journal of Advertising, 17, 12–22.

Yang-Wallentin, F., Schmidt, P., Davidov, E., & Bamberg, S. (2004). Is there an interaction effect between intention and

perceived behavioral control? Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 127–157.

APPENDIX: QUESTIONNAIRE

This first part of the questionnaire aims to investigate on a journalistic matter. We want to under-

stand what might influence your attention toward 3 issues.

[dependent variables: journalists’ communication behavior]

Question 1: Imagine to write an article, independently from your journalistic area of com-

petence, and tell us for each of the following stories:

– Your degree of attention to the story

– If you would be available to look for further information on the story


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

News n� 1: Somalia.

‘‘Somalia is facing its best opportunity to have peace in the last 15 years. The process of reconcili-

ation is reaching its last critical phase, and the UN is ready to mobilize its troupes of humanitarian

aid and assistance. However, international media remain outside the country, and instability is

always looming, potentially calling into question the UN’s support. ’’

(check the appropriate option)

What degree of attention would you provide to a press

release on this topic?

1

No

attention

2

Little

attention

3

Somewhat

attention

4

A lot of

attention

In which measure would you be prone to look for

further information material on this topic in order to

write an article?

1

Not at all

2

Little

3

somewhat

4

A lot

News n� 2: Violence against women‘‘The statistics are alarming. Despite the global diffusion and disconcerting human cost, the problem

of violence against women does not receive proper attention in the media, which do not reserve the

necessary space this problem deserves in their news productions.’’


What degree of attention would you provide to a press

release on this topic?

1

No

attention

2

Little

attention

3

Somewhat

attention

4

A lot of

attention

In which measure would you be prone to look for further

information material on this topic in order to write

an article?

1

Not at all

2

Little

3

somewhat

4

A lot

News n� 3: Environment and health‘‘.Scientists provided the world with another meaningful reason to protect the environment. They

identified a repugnant list of infective diseases that re-emerged and diffused themselves in places

in which the natural habitat was altered or degraded by deforestation, the construction of streets,

and urban development.’’


What degree of attention would you provide to a

press release on this topic?

1

No attention

2

Little attention

3

Somewhat

attention

4

A lot of

attention

In which measure would you be prone to look for

further information material on this topic

in order to write an article?

1

Not at all

2

Little

3

somewhat

4

A lot


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

Question 2:

[independent variable: situational driver 1]

a. With regard to the topics listed above, indicate how often you stop and think about

each one the three issues


1

Never

2

Rarely

3

sometimes

4

Always

War in Somalia and the peace process

Environment and health


[control variable: institutional situational driver 1]

b. How much do you think that the public opinion is interested in the three topics


1

Not at all

2

little

3

A bit

4

A lot




Question 3:


a. As a journalist, do you think that you could do something personally that would

make a difference in the way the following issues are approached (handled) ?


1

No

difference at all

2

Little

difference

3

Sometimes

a difference

4

A lot of

difference





Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

b. Do you think that the public opinion, if well informed, can make a difference in how

these issues are approached and managed?


1

No

difference at all

2

Little

difference

3

Sometimes

a difference

4

A lot of

difference




Question 4:


a. Please indicate to what extent each issue is important to you personally


1

Not at all

2

little

3

A bit

4

A lot




[control variable: institutional situational driver 3]

a. Please indicate to what extent each issue is important for the public opinion


1

Not at all

2

little

3

A bit

4

A lot




Question 5:

Did you ever heard about the United Nation project of ‘‘ten stories the work should not more

about’’?

Yes

No


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

Question 6:

If yes, did you ever received material on it?

Yes

No

Question 7:

If yes, did you wrote an article on one of these ten stories?

Yes

No

This second part of the questionnaire aims to identify your degree of attachment to Ticino, with

respect to other countries.

Question 8:

[independent variable: ethnocentrism]

Please, indicate to which extent you agree to the following statements

1

Completely disagree

2

Not at all

3

little

4

A bit

5

Absolutely agree

1. Other countries should model themselves after Ticino [ ]

2. People in Ticino have just about the best lifestyles of anywhere [ ]

3. Most countries are backwards in comparison to Ticino [ ]

4. Most people would be happier if they lived like people in Ticino [ ]

5. Ticino is a poor example of how to run a country [ ]

6. Lifestyles in other countries are just as valid as in Ticino [ ]

7. People in Ticino could learn a lot from people of other countries [ ]

8. I enjoy learning about the customs and values of other countries [ ]

9. Although different, most countries have an equally valid value system (compared to Ticino) [ ]

10. People from other countries act strange and unusual when they come to Ticino [ ]

11. Most people from other cultures just do not know what is good for them [ ]

Question 9:

[control variable]

When you write an article, you prefer that it is on a topic related to:

(possible to choose only one option)

& Switzerland

& Ticino

& Europe

& Rest of the world


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

General information

In this last part you will be asked to provide us information on your profession and back-

ground. We assure you complete anonymity. These data will be only used for statistics purposes

[control variables: demographics]

Age

Sex: M& F&

Place of birth :

& Ticino

& Other Swiss region

& Other country:

Your professional role

& Newspaper

& Magazine

& Television

& Radio

& E-newspaper

& Free lance

& Other:

Area of journalistic competence:

& Regional news

& Politics

& Economy

& Foreign affairs

& Culture

& Science and technologies

& Sport

& Other:


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f L

ugan

o], [

Fran

cesc

o L

urat

i] a

t 14:

07 0

7 A

pril

2013

Situational Theory of Publics: Exploring a Cultural Ethnocentric Bias

Documents

Transcript of Situational Theory of Publics: Exploring a Cultural Ethnocentric Bias