This article was downloaded by: [Purdue University]On: 17 April 2012, At: 06:56Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Public Relations ResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hprr20

What Makes People Hot? Applying theSituational Theory of Problem Solving toHot-Issue PublicsJeong-Nam Kim a , Lan Ni b , Sei-Hill Kim c & Jangyul Robert Kim da Brian Lamb School of Communication, Purdue Universityb Jack J. Valenti School of Communication, University of Houstonc School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of SouthCarolinad Department of Journalism and Technical Communication, ColoradoState University

Available online: 12 Apr 2012

To cite this article: Jeong-Nam Kim, Lan Ni, Sei-Hill Kim & Jangyul Robert Kim (2012): What MakesPeople Hot? Applying the Situational Theory of Problem Solving to Hot-Issue Publics, Journal of PublicRelations Research, 24:2, 144-164

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2012.626133

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

What Makes People Hot? Applying theSituational Theory of ProblemSolving to Hot-Issue Publics

Jeong-Nam Kim

Brian Lamb School of Communication, Purdue University

Lan Ni

Jack J. Valenti School of Communication, University of Houston

Sei-Hill Kim

School of Journalism and Mass Communication, University of South Carolina

Jangyul Robert Kim

Department of Journalism and Technical Communication, Colorado State University

Using a controversial issue that has drawn massive media coverage in South Korea, the government

decision to resume imports of US beef, this study tested the applicability of the Situational Theory of

Problem Solving (STOPS) to the rise of a hot-issue public. A survey of 300 respondents explored the

perceptual, cognitive, and motivational antecedents of active information behaviors. Results suggest

that the STOPS applies well to this unique sociopolitical situation, and that the theory works cross-

culturally not only in the United States, but also in South Korea. In addition, we examined the role of

cross-situational characteristics in detail, looking at whether political interest, prior experience in

protest, and other sociodemographics could affect situational perceptions and cognitive frames.

Theoretical and practical implications for future research and practices are discussed.

The situational theory of publics (STP) is a foundational theory in public relations research and

practices (see Aldoory & Sha, 2006; J. E. Grunig, 1997, 2003, for reviews). It defines publics as

the ground for relationship building in the behavioral, strategic management paradigms of public

relations (J. E. Grunig, Ferrari, & Franca, 2009; L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002). The

theory is considered particularly useful in conceptually and methodologically breaking up the

general population into more meaningful categories within and across issues (Aldoory, 2001;

Ban, 2010; J. E Grunig, 1989; J.-N. Kim, Ni, & Sha, 2008; Sha, 2006, Tindall & Vaderman,

2008). The theory is also considered a useful way to evaluate the effectiveness of public relations

This study is supported by 2008 Korea Public Relations Association (KPRA) Best Research Proposal Award on

Public Relations Worldwide.

Correspondence should be sent to Dr. Jeong-Nam Kim, Brian Lamb School of Communication, Purdue University,

West Lafayette, IN 47907–2098. E-mail: situationaltheory@gmail.com

Journal of Public Relations Research, 24: 144–164, 2012

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

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

DOI: 10.1080/1062726X.2012.626133

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

56 1

7 A

pril

2012

campaigns (Aldoory & Van Dyke, 2006; J.-N. Kim & Ni, 2009; J.-N. Kim, Shen, & Morgan,

2009; Vaderman & Aldoory, 2008).

To advance the theory further, J.-N. Kim and J. E. Grunig (2011) recently proposed a more

generalized situational theory: the Situational Theory of Problem Solving (STOPS). In the earliertheory (STP), a public’s communicative action was described primarily in terms of information

acquisition (information seeking and processing). The new theory (STOPS) generalizes com-

municative action as problem solver’s acquisition, transmission, and selection of information per-

taining to given problem. The new situational theory consists of four independent variables

(problem recognition, constraint recognition, involvement recognition, referent criterion), situa-

tional motivation in problem solving as a mediating variable, and finally the dependent variable,

the communicative action in problem solving with six subvariables of information behaviors

(J.-N. Kim & J. E. Grunig, 2011). STOPS explains that communication, being epiphenomenal

and instrumental to problem solving, increases as one’s situation-specific perceptions and motiv-

ation are activated.

This new theory can effectively address several limitations of the original STP. For example,

STOPS now takes into consideration what some scholars considered the process of issue dynam-

ics and the role of communicative interactions (e.g., issues activation in Hallahan, 2001; homo

narrans perspective of publics in Vasquez & Taylor, 2001; for a review, see Ni & Kim, 2009).

Specifically, the new theory addresses why and how people become active about a certain prob-

lem and how they engage in communication behaviors. In that process, members of an active

public not only turn to different information sources, but also initiate informal conversations

inside their own social networks (J.-N. Kim, J. E. Grunig, & Ni, 2010). They may become influ-

ential opinion leaders in the networks, functioning to raise others’ problem awareness. Eventu-

ally, active publics can motivate other people to engage in solving the problematic situation (Ni

& Kim, 2009).

The new situational theory introduces a motivational variable, situational motivation in prob-lem solving, and reintroduces a discarded variable, referent criterion. These new variables

broaden the conceptual scope of the theory, incorporating perceptions, cognitive frame, and

motivational aspects of problem solving. In addition, the reintroduction of referent criterion

responds to recent calls to bring the variable back into situational theory (J.-N. Kim et al.,

2008; Sriramesh, Moghan, & Wei, 2007). The new theory can also serve as an effective way

to explain employees’ positive and negative communicative behaviors during the course of orga-

nizational turbulence (J.-N. Kim & Rhee, 2011).

The theory needs to be tested in a variety of contexts to establish its external validity. Our study

is different from previous research in a number of respects. First, this study deals with a particular

type of a sociopolitical hot issue, one that has received extensive media coverage. Second, although

previous studies have included multiple issues on which data were collected (e.g., J. E. Grunig,

1997), this study examines a single issue to test the theory. Third, this study investigates the effects

of such cross-situational variables as demographics and political knowledge, which previously have

not been tested extensively. Finally, our study aims to test the cross-cultural applicability of the

theory by using participants from a non-US culture, South Korea, thus enhancing the generalizabil-

ity of the theory. The article first discusses the notion of hot-issue publics, linking it to the STOPS.We then report the findings from our survey data to demonstrate how well the theory can explain

the communication behaviors of hot-issue publics and how applicable the theory is to another

culture. Finally, some theoretical and practical implications of the theory are discussed in detail.

APPLYING SITUATIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING TO HOT-ISSUE PUBLICS 145

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

56 1

7 A

pril

2012

CONCEPTUALIZING HOT-ISSUE PUBLICS

Many public relations practitioners assume that most people have opinions on most issues. The

practitioners also have unrealistic expectations about the power of mass media, assuming that

they are powerful enough to completely harm their organization or to win excessive

support (J. E. Grunig, 1997). In the study of publics, this powerful media effect may be applied

only to one specific type of publics, that is, the hot-issue publics. In the traditional typology, the

hot-issue publics refer to those who are ‘‘active only on a single problem that involves nearly

everyone in the population and that has received extensive media coverage’’ (J. E. Grunig,

1997, p. 13).

Research has shown that hot-issue publics tend to pay more attention to negative media issues

than to positive ones, and thus may present a threat to related organizations (J. E. Grunig, 1997;

Aldoory & J. E. Grung, 2012). Favorable publicity items in the media do not usually create

hot-issue publics but tend to attract only those who are already active. On the other hand, nega-

tive media coverage, when produced repeatedly, can attract even nonactive publics, people who

had no prior awareness of the problem.

Hot-issue publics are unique and different from other publics. They tend to recognize greater

constraint in problematic situations. They usually do not have well-organized cognition, and

their attitudes tend to be transitory. Not truly involved in the issue at hand, these publics may

quickly disappear when the media stop talking about the issue (J. E. Grunig, 1997). In addition,

an exploration into the internal and external dimensions of the situational variables indicate that

a hot issue tends to create publics who show the internal dimensions of variables more strongly

than external variables (J. E. Grunig, 1997, Ni, 2003). They are characterized by problem rec-

ognition more than involvement. Hot-issue publics are ‘‘more intellectual publics than actively

behaving publics’’ (J. E. Grunig, 1997, p. 29).

This study tests the applicability of the STOPS, incorporating the unique features of publics

when involved in a hot-issue situation. In addition, we test the cross-cultural validity of the theory

by looking at a public outside of the United States. The issue examined in this study deals with the

controversy in South Korea over the government decision to resume imports of US beef. In April

2008, on the eve of a meeting with President Bush, President Lee Myung Bak of South Korea

announced a plan to lift the 5-year-old ban on American beef imports, first imposed in 2003 after

the report of mad cow disease deaths in the United States. The gesture demonstrated Lee’s eager-

ness to rebuild ties with Washington. However, the decision was met with strong and emotional

opposition from the general population, which led to South Korea’s largest antigovernment protest

in 20 years.

HOT-ISSUE PUBLICS AND COMMUNICATIVE ACTION

The model of communicative action (J.-N. Kim et al., 2010) explains individuals’ activeness in

selecting, transmitting, and acquiring information. Each of these three communicative actions is

further divided into active and passive subdimensions, yielding a total of six dependent variables

(see Figure 1). Specifically, selection of information consists of information forefending (active)

and information permitting (passive). Transmission of information consists of information for-

warding (active) and information sharing (passive). Acquisition of information also consists of

146 KIM ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

56 1

7 A

pril

2012

information seeking (active) and information attending (passive; J. E. Grunig, 1997;

J.-N. Kim & J. E. Grunig, 2011).

Information Forefending and Information Permitting

Information forefending and information permitting are two subvariables of information select-

ing. Information forefending describes the extent to which individuals try to select more relevant

and useful information for solving a problem (J.-N. Kim & J. E. Grunig, 2011). Individuals

active in problem solving do not accept all the information that they receive; rather, they system-

atically select the pieces that are most helpful and relevant (J.-N. Kim & J. E. Grunig, 2011). On

the other hand, information permitting indicates the extent to which individuals indiscriminately

accept any information related to the situation (J.-N. Kim, J. E. Grunig, & Ni, 2010). Information

permitting tends to occur at an early phase of problem solving. Information permitting and

information forefending are not mutually exclusive. An active problem solver can be inclusive

and accepting of almost all pertinent information and opinions from different sources, even

those that run against his or her initial opinion, i.e., ‘‘ideation stage,’’ (J.-N. Kim et al., 2010,

pp. 140–141). As the problem solver learns more about the problematic situation, however,

he or she can systematically ward off irrelevant or less useful information, i.e., the ‘‘effectuating

stage’’ (J.-N. Kim et al., 2010, pp. 140–141). We hypothesize the following:

Hypothesis 1(H1): Individuals’ activeness in problem solving is positively related to their selection

of information, such that the more active the individual, the more information

forefending (H1a) and information permitting (H1b) occurs.

FIGURE 1 Situational theory of problem solving. (Figure available in color online.)

APPLYING SITUATIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING TO HOT-ISSUE PUBLICS 147

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

56 1

7 A

pril

2012

Information Forwarding and Information Sharing

Transmission of information can be manifested in two ways. Information forwarding refers to a

purposeful offering of information to others, whereas information sharing indicates reactive

sharing of information (J.-N. Kim et al., 2010; Ni & Kim, 2009). The focal problem solver

may have expertise and knowledge in improving the current problematic situation. The distinc-

tion between these two variables lies in whether the communicator tries to proactively share his

or her expertise and knowledge with others. The more active the problem solver is, the more

likely he or she will engage in forwarding and sharing information. Thus, we propose the fol-

lowing hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2(H2): Individuals’ activeness in problem solving is positively related to their

transmission of information, such that the more active the individual, the more

information forwarding (H2a) and information sharing (H2b) occurs.

Information Seeking and Information Attending

Information seeking and information attending are related to information acquisition. Information

seeking is defined as ‘‘the planned scanning of the environment for messages about a specified

topic’’ (J. E. Grunig, 1997, p. 9). Information attending, on the other hand, refers to unplanned

discovery of messages (Clarke & Kline, 1974; J. E. Grunig, 1997, 2003, 2005). An active prob-

lem solver seeks out information, as well as attends to provided information, whereas a passive

problem solver may process information only when he or she is exposed to it. We propose the

following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 3(H3): Individuals’ activeness in problem solving is positively related to their

acquisition of information, such that the more active the individual, the more

information seeking (H3a) and information attending (H3b) occurs.

ANTECEDENTS TO COMMUNICATIVE ACTION

The STOPS incorporates the factors that can lead to different communicative actions of hot-issue

publics. The antecedents are further divided into situational (including perceptive, cognitive, and

motivational) and cross-situational antecedents.

Hot-Issue Publics, Situational Perceptions, and Cognitive Frames

Problem recognition. Recognizing a problem depends largely on one’s individuality in

thinking; it is a joint outcome of one’s mind and the perceived world in which one resides

(J.-N. Kim & J. E. Grunig, 2011; Popper, 1963). The extent of discrepancy between an expec-

tation (what one expects, e.g., being healthy) and an observation (what one experiences, e.g.,

exposure to a greater risk of mad cow disease) will create the sense of a problematic state (‘‘a felt

difficulty,’’ Dewey, 1910, p. 72; see also research on automaticity, Bargh, 1996). People dis-

tinguish two types of problems—a perceptual problem (problem) and a cognitive problem

148 KIM ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

56 1

7 A

pril

2012

(metaproblem). A perceptual problem is a perceived discrepancy between expected and observed

states. A cognitive problem is the absence of a ready-made solution to a perceptual problem (J.-N.

Kim & J. E. Grunig, 2011).

The original STP defined problem recognition as occurring when ‘‘people detect that some-

thing should be done about a situation and stop to think about what to do’’ (J. E. Grunig, 1997,

p. 10). In this article, we use the term problem recognition to refer to recognition of a cognitive

problem—‘‘one’s perception that something is missing and that there is no immediately

applicable solution to it’’ (J.-N. Kim& J. E. Grunig, 2011, p. 11). A person who recognizes a prob-

lem but feels incapable of finding or effectuating an applicable solution enters a problematic situ-

ation (J. E. Grunig, 1968; J.-N. Kim & J. E. Grunig, 2011). As a result, the person is likely to stop

his or her current routine to find a solution (J. E. Grunig, 2003). The degree of perceived gap

increases one’s probability of stopping to think about what to do, but the discrepancy alone cannot

determine the extent of subsequent thinking and efforts. Other perceptual factors also influence

how extensively one thinks, including the extent of perceived connection to the problem (involve-

ment recognition) and perceived obstacles in doing something about it (constraint recognition).

Involvement recognition. The concept of involvement has been explored extensively in a

number of psychological and communication models (e.g., Kruglanski & Thompson, 1999;

Petty & Cacioppo, 1986). The concept is particularly useful when it is used to segment

individuals into varying degrees of communicative and cognitive activities (Salmon, 1986;

Slater, 1997; Zaichkowsky, 1986). One common-sense definition is the ‘‘degree of importance

or concern that a product or behavior generates in different individuals’’ (Lovelock & Weinberg,

1984, p. 73). Some researchers have described involvement in a nonperceptual way, e.g., as a

characteristic of a medium (Krugman, 1965) or as a characteristic of a product (Ray, 1973).

J. E. Grunig (1976), however, defined it as a ‘‘perception’’ that people come to have within a

given situation, or ‘‘the extent to which people connect themselves with a situation’’

(J. E. Grunig, 1997, p. 10). The extent of people’s communicative action can be affected by

their perceived connection—involvement—to the problematic situation. When their perceived

connection is low, people tend to become passive in communication behavior (e.g., information

attending); when their perceived connection is high, on the other hand, they are likely to become

communicatively active (e.g., information seeking) (J. E. Grunig, 1976).

It is more appropriate to conceptualize involvement as a perception rather than as a variable

that triggers perception (J.-N. Kim & J. E. Grunig, 2011). Actual connection is different from

perceived connection, given that the perception can be inaccurate and biased (Fiske & Taylor,

1991). Unless we perceive that a problem affects our interest, involvement neither exists in our

mind nor taxes our efforts to do something about it. Following the situational theory perspec-

tive, we conceive involvement as involvement recognition—a perceived connection between

the self and a problematic situation (J. E. Grunig, 1997; J.-N. Kim, J. E. Grunig, & Ni, 2010).

Constraint recognition. The concept of constraint recognition has its origin in economics

and has not been extensively used in communication and marketing theories (J. E. Grunig, 1989;

Cf. ‘‘self-efficacy,’’ Bandura, 1986). It is one of the two original conceptual variables developed

by J. E. Grunig (1968) in his earlier version of the STP. Following the earlier version of the

theory, we define constraint recognition as occurring when ‘‘people perceive that there are obsta-

cles in a situation that limit their ability to do anything about the situation’’ (J. E. Grunig, 1997,

p. 10). Constraint recognition reduces communication behavior, such as information seeking and

APPLYING SITUATIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING TO HOT-ISSUE PUBLICS 149

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

56 1

7 A

pril

2012

attending, even when communicators have high levels of problem recognition and perceived

involvement (Ramanadhan & Viswanath, 2006). As found in J. E. Grunig’s (1971) study of

Colombian peasants and landowners, people tend to not communicate about ‘‘problems or issues

about which they believe they can do little or about behaviors they do not believe they have the

personal efficacy to execute’’ (J. E. Grunig, 1989, p. 212).

Referent criterion. People tend to recall relevant experiences from the past in order to find a

way to solve a given problem (Carter, 1965; Higgins, 1996). A relevant experience or knowledge

is called ‘‘a referent’’ applicable to other repeated problems (Simon, 1957), to a cognitive

‘‘schema’’ (Fiske & Linville, 1980), or to a ‘‘cross-situational attitude’’ that guides one’s problem

solving (J. E. Grunig, 1997). J. E. Grunig (1968) originally proposed a referent criterion as being

‘‘determined by the antecedent condition, especially from the social contacts of the individual and

from his past behavior which has partially determined the antecedent conditions’’ (p. 27).

A referent criterion is largely cognitive, rather than perceptual, in nature because it taps

‘‘available’’ and ‘‘applicable’’ knowledge and inferential rules (Higgins, 1996, p. 138). Follow-

ing the STOPS, we define referent criterion as ‘‘any knowledge or subjective judgmental system

that influences the way in which one approaches problem solving’’ (J.-N. Kim & J. E. Grunig, in

press, p. 15). Referent criterion can include decisional guidelines relevant to a given problem; it

could be either retrieved from prior problematic situations or improvised at an early phase of

problem solving (J.-N. Kim & J. E. Grunig, 2011).

The success or failure in finding a referent criterion will affect the degree of cognitive efforts and

communicative action in problem solving (Kruglanski, 1989). If a problem holder finds a recyclable

and workable referent criterion, he or she will be less eager to search for new information, but more

likely to select and give information fitting with the referent criterion. Notably, if the referent criterion

is largely of a subjective type—i.e., improvised at the early phase of problem solving the presence of

a referent criterion will increase communication in all dimensions, including information acquisition,

selection, and transmission. In contrast, if the referent criterion is of an objective type—i.e., recycled

from successful previous problem solving, it will decrease information seeking but increase infor-

mation selection and transmission. Overall, it is expected that the presence of, or a stronger subscrip-

tion to, a referent criterion will lead to greater communicative action in problem solving.

Hot-Issue Public and Situation-Specific Motivation

Motivational antecedents and consequences can enhance theoretical power in explaining one’s

information need and use (Kruglanski, 1996). The STP was originally grounded only on percep-

tual variables in explaining subsequent communication behavior. In our generalized version of

situational theory, a situation-specific motivational factor (Situational Motivation in ProblemSolving, see Figure 1) is introduced as a mediating variable that links situational perceptions

to communicative activeness.

Situational motivation in problem solving is defined as the state of increased cognitive and

epistemic readiness to reduce the perceived discrepancy between expected and experiential

states. This concept refers to one’s situation-specific cognitive and epistemic readiness to make

problem-solving efforts, which increases as one perceives a problematic state, its connections to

himself or herself, and=or the absence of constraints in doing something about the problem (J.-N.

Kim & J. E. Grunig, 2011). Situational motivation in problem solving represents the extent to

150 KIM ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

56 1

7 A

pril

2012

which a person is willing to learn and think more about a given problem as a consequence of

recognizing a problematic situation, finding a close connection to his or her own interest, and=orexpecting little constraint in solving the problem (see Figure 1).We propose the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 4(H4): Individuals’ problem recognition is positively related to their situational motiv-

ation in problem solving.

Hypothesis 5(H5): Individuals’ constraint recognition is negatively related to their situational motiv-

ation in problem solving.

Hypothesis 6(H6): Individuals’ involvement recognition is positively related to their situational

motivation in problem solving.

In addition, individuals tend to actively communicate about a problematic situation when they

subscribe to referent criteria and when individuals are situationally motivated to cope with the

problematic situation. We therefore posit the following hypotheses:

Hypothesis 7(H7): Individuals’ referent criterion is positively related to their communicative action

in problem solving.

Hypothesis 8(H8): Individuals’ situational motivation in problem solving is positively related to

their communicative action in problem solving

Cross-Situational Factors: Political Interest, Protest Participation, andSociodemographics

Previous research on publics found that, in general, exposure to media messages alone does not

draw nonpublics into active publics (see J. E. Grunig, 1997 for a detailed review). One interest-

ing exception is hot-issue publics. Hot-issue publics can quickly arise from heavy media cover-

age, especially when the coverage is negative and when it involves scandals, disasters, or

national problems. However, the hot-issue publics also tend to disappear quite easily when

the media stop discussing the issue (J. E. Grunig, 1997).

Although hot-issue publics are largely media-dependent for their rise and fall, it may be poss-

ible that some individual traits can also influence how they react to a controversial issue. Specifi-

cally, we look at whether one’s political interest and engagement in political actions can amplify

one’s situational perceptions (e.g., constraint recognition) and cognitive frames (i.e., referent cri-

terion). We explore whether greater interest in political affairs can lead a person to perceive a

given issue as more problematic, to feel more connected to the issue, and to perceive fewer obsta-

cles in doing something it. In addition, it is likely that those with higher political interest would

activate more and subscribe more strongly to some referent criteria than those with lower political

interest. Referent criterion could be activated from stored knowledge and prior experiences

acquired in thinking or doing something about the problem (‘‘knowledge activation’’; Higgins,

1996, p. 134). In this vein, those with greater interest in political affairs are likely to activate more

knowledge, experiences, and subjective political perspectives in thinking about media-driven hot

issues. In addition, those with stronger political interest tend to deal with a greater amount of

political information, which, in turn, can lead them to perceive hot-issue related situations as more

problematic and connected while seeing fewer barriers to doing something about the situation.

APPLYING SITUATIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING TO HOT-ISSUE PUBLICS 151

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

56 1

7 A

pril

2012

If the source of public concern is a serious matter, some members of hot-issue publics may

engage in certain issue-related actions, such as writing letters to politicians, attending public

meetings, or participating in protests. In such cases, participating in issue-related actions can amplify

one’s situational perceptions and reinforce cognitive frames more strongly. One’s experience with

participatory activities may also increase his or her subscription to emergent collective identity(Friedman & McAdam, 1992) and collective action frames—emergent action-triggering beliefs

and meaning that inspire and legitimize collective actions (Snow & Benford, 1992).

We posit the following two sets of hypotheses:

Hypothesis 9(H9): Individuals’ political interest influences situational perceptions and cognitive

frames, such that the greater the political interest, the higher the problem rec-

ognition (H9a), the lower the constraint recognition (H9b), the higher the

involvement recognition (H9c), and the stronger the referent criterion (H9d).

Hypothesis 10(H10): Individuals’ issue-related actions influence situational perceptions and cogni-

tive frames, such that protest participation increases problem recognition

(H10a), decreases constraint recognition (H10b), and increases both involve-

ment recognition (H10c) and referent criterion (H10d).

Finally, it is important to examine whether hot-issue publics are affected by their demo-

graphics, such as age, gender, and socioeconomic status. Situational theory researchers have

argued that cross-situational factors in general exert smaller effects than do situational factors

(J. E. Grunig, 1997; J.-N. Kim, Jung, Park, & Dutta, 2009; Ni, 2003). Nonetheless, little effort

has been made to examine the effects of demographics on situational perceptions and criterion.

We ask the following research question:

RQ1: What are the effects of gender, age, and socioeconomic status on situational perceptions and

cognitive frames related to a hot issue?

PARTICIPANTS

We chose a nonprobability quota sampling, assigning equal proportions of gender and age groups

among participants: men (n¼ 150) and women (n¼ 150); five age groups, 18–29 (n¼ 60, 20%),

30–39 (n¼ 60, 20%), 40–49 (n¼ 60, 20%), 50–59 (n¼ 60, 20%), and 60 and higher (n¼ 60,

20%). The quota sampling was particularly necessary because we were attempting to make a

comparison across different demographic subpopulations. Although quota sampling is not a prob-

ability sampling, it could be practical if reliable data exist to describe the demographic make-up of

the population, and the proportion of each demographic group in the sample is similar to its pro-

portion in the population (Fink, 2003). According to the 2008 Korean census (http://kostat.go.kr),

the population has a 50=50 gender ratio and evenly distributed age groups, a distribution similar

to the demographic quotas in our sample.

To determine the number of participants, we used Hancock’s (2006) power analysis in struc-

tural equation modeling. According to Hancock’s simulation studies, a sample size of n¼ 300

would be sufficient to test the overall data-model fit at the level of power (p) .80 with RMSEA

(e)¼ .02 and models’ df� 60. Participants in this study were recruited through a nationwide

online research panel in September 2008. The research panel consists of about 400,000 members

152 KIM ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

56 1

7 A

pril

2012

who are voluntarily registered as a research panel in exchange for a small amount of financial

reward. Participants were recruited through e-mail notifications about the proposed study. When

they volunteered to take the survey, participants were screened in terms of gender and age

groups and then randomly assigned into predetermined demographic categories until the total

number reached 300. Participants were then led to the Web site survey.

MEASURES

STOPS posits a second-order dependent variable, communicative action in problem solving,

which consists of six subvariables. The six subvariables include three measures of proactivebehaviors—information forefending, information forwarding, and information seeking, and

another three measures of reactive behaviors—information permitting, information sharing,

and information attending. The communicative action variable is then predicted by five antece-

dent variables—problem recognition, constraint recognition, involvement recognition, referent

criterion, and situational motivation in problem solving. Responses were coded on a seven-point

Likert-scale (1¼ not at all to 7¼ extremely). See Appendix 1 for question wording. In addition

to STOPS questions, we asked four questions on political interest (see Appendix 1). Demo-

graphic variables included gender, age, income, and education. By combining education and

income we created a measure of socioeconomic status.1 The loadings for the structural model

are summarized in Table 1. Table 2 reports the first-order correlations between the variables.

ANALYSIS

We followed the two-step structural equation modeling procedure (Kline, 1998). In the first step,

we tested and selected the best items for each latent variable. We dropped unnecessary items by

checking correlated residuals and cross-loadings. In the second step, we specified the hypothe-

sized structural relationships based on the final measurement models from the first step. In our

analysis, the priori structural model achieved a reasonable model-data fit. We thus kept and

tested the initially specified model for hypothesis tests and interpretations. To assess the viability

of the proposed structural equation models, we considered several commonly used model fit

indexes, such as comparative fit index (CFI), root mean square error of approximation

(RMSEA), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR).

RESULTS

Structural Model Testing and Hypothesis Testing

We used Hu and Bentler’s (1999) joint-criteria approach, which is a rather conservative model

evaluation approach. In the joint-criteria approach, a model is considered viable if it approaches

1In creating SES, we dichotomized each variable into high and low groups using the median. We summed up the two

dichotomized variables resulting in three levels of socioeconomic status (low¼ 0, medium¼ 1, high¼ 2). Individuals

belonging to the low SES were those who fell below the median in education and income, individuals with the medium

SES were those who fell into either upper median income or upper median education, and individuals with the high SES

were those who fell into upper medians in both income and education.

APPLYING SITUATIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING TO HOT-ISSUE PUBLICS 153

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

56 1

7 A

pril

2012

CFI �.96 and SRMR �.10 or RMSEA �.06 and SRMR �.10. Our conceptual models met the

joint criteria (see Figure 2). We thus interpreted the model parameter estimates in order to test

our hypotheses. All findings from the four structural model tests are summarized in Figure 2.

H1 predicts that the more active individuals are about the problematic situation, the more likely

they are to engage in information forefending (H1a) and information permitting (H1b). We found

positive and significant paths from the communicative action variable to information forefending

(coefficient¼ .79, p< .001) and to information permitting (coefficient¼ .56, p< .001). H1a and

H1b were thus supported. H2 states that individuals’ activeness about problematic situation is posi-

tively related to their transmission of information, such that the greater the level of activeness, the

more information forwarding (H2a) and the more information sharing (H2b) occurs. Again, there

were significant paths from communicative action to information forwarding (coefficient¼ .90,

p< .001) and information sharing (coefficient¼ .72, p< .001). H2a and H2b were supported.

H3 posits a positive relationship between communicative action and information seeking (H3a)

and information attending (H3b). We found support for both hypotheses: information seeking

(coefficient¼ .92, p< .001); information attending (coefficient¼ .95, p< .001).

H4 predicts a positive association between problem recognition and situation-specific motiv-

ation. The path between the two variables was not significant (coefficient¼ .08, p¼ ns); H4 was

TABLE 1

Factor and Item Loadings for Dependent and Independent Variables (N¼ 300)

Second-Order Factor First-Order Factor

First-Order

Factor Loading

Item

Loading�

Communicative action

in problem solving

Information forefending .79 .59

.80

.78

Information permitting .56 .56

Information forwarding .90 .52

.47

.63

Information sharing .72 .72

Information seeking .92 .86

.77

.84

Information attending .95 .72

.75

Situational motivation .85

.47

Problem recognition .78

.70

Involvement recognition .87

.86

Constraint recognition .70

.15

Referent criterion .74

.89

.76

�Based on best items.

154 KIM ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

56 1

7 A

pril

2012

TABLE2

CorrelationMatrices,Means,andStandard

Deviations

Mean

SDPR1

PR2

CR1

CR2

IR1

IR2

RC1

RC2

MOTV1

MOTV21

IFF1

IFF2

IFF3

IPM1

IFW1

IFW2

IFW3

ISH1

ISK1

ISK2

ISK3

IPC2

IPC2

PR1

5.52

1.39

—

PR2

5.48

1.21

.581

—

CR1

4.10

1.24

.120

.113

—

CR2

4.44

1.33

.248

.242

.097

—

IR1

4.80

1.62

.580

.500

.206

.263

—

IR2

4.96

1.54

.525

.563

.257

.209

.760

—

RC1

4.84

1.32

.267

.347

.427

.146

.329

.388

—

RC2

4.58

1.33

.179

.189

.502

.093

.295

.292

.654

—

RC3

4.61

1.24

.158

.181

.378

.043

.228

.250

.546

.698

—

MOTV1

4.04

1.40

.365

.314

.399

.171

.479

.452

.460

.447

.373

—

MOTV21

3.59

1.58

�.378

�.292

�.126

�.090

�.431

�.438

�.161

�.162

�.144

�.379

—

IFF1

3.91

1.26

.071

.103

.344

.083

.146

.164

.242

.267

.300

.413

�.099

—

IFF2

3.60

1.28

.153

.079

.465

.093

.298

.272

.295

.326

.299

.463

�.217

.467

—

IFF3

3.99

1.35

.104

.016

.597

.125

.158

.211

.461

.524

.421

.415

�.127

.469

.625

—

IPM1

4.35

1.29

.301

.239

.449

.331

.391

.347

.328

.324

.307

.422

�.214

.335

.464

.507

—

IFW1

2.44

1.68

.133

.148

.257

.028

.247

.243

.263

.246

.187

.365

�.184

.190

.396

.302

.197

—

IFW2

2.75

1.80

.026

.000

.208

�.011

.166

.193

.248

.278

.225

.332

�.099

.188

.282

.298

.160

.620

—

IFW3

4.13

1.58

.243

.246

.251

.192

.326

.420

.480

.419

.359

.442

�.162

.247

.303

.346

.261

.401

.396

—

ISH1

3.91

1.52

.261

.303

.379

.146

.444

.528

.544

.468

.385

.555

�.348

.320

.413

.420

.403

.461

.404

.719

—

ISK1

3.87

1.53

.232

.209

.391

.065

.349

.346

.393

.435

.392

.673

�.357

.374

.555

.486

.363

.440

.360

.434

.587

—

ISK2

4.21

1.59

.389

.390

.346

.174

.419

.410

.346

.408

.399

.575

�.357

.307

.484

.431

.515

.369

.223

.354

.503

.628

—

ISK3

3.77

1.51

.252

.239

.389

.096

.334

.347

.316

.347

.326

.677

�.339

.420

.593

.517

.394

.407

.365

.340

.467

.732

.629

—

IAT1

4.95

1.34

.396

.462

.321

.139

.424

.408

.428

.433

.374

.588

�.372

.256

.343

.357

.447

.248

.155

.340

.452

.484

.580

.518

—

IAT2

4.30

1.46

.368

.263

.343

.237

.384

.361

.405

.363

.320

.672

�.285

.306

.458

.395

.484

.335

.292

.435

.510

.550

.568

.575

.543

Note.

Aseven-point

Likert

scale.

PR¼problem

recognition.

CR¼constraint

recognition.

IR¼involvem

ent

recognition.

RC¼referent

criterion.

MOTV¼

situational

motivation

inproblem

solving.IFF¼inform

ation

forefending.IPM

¼inform

ation

permitting.IFW

¼inform

ation

forw

arding.ISH¼inform

ation

sharing.

ISK¼inform

ationseeking.IA

T¼inform

ationattending.

155

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

56 1

7 A

pril

2012

not supported. H5 predicts a negative link from individual’s constraint recognition to

situation-specific motivation. The path was negative and significant (coefficient¼�.56,

p< .001), yielding support for the hypothesis. H6 posits a positive path from involvement

recognition to situation-specific motivation. Again, the path was positive and significant

(coefficient¼ .36, p< .001). H7 states that stronger subscription to a referent criterion will lead

to greater communicative action about a problematic situation. As shown in Figure 2, this

hypothesis was supported with a positive and significant coefficient (.16, p< .01). H8 predicts

that greater situational motivation will be related to higher communicative action. Again, the

prediction was supported (coefficient¼ .85, p< .001).

H9 examines whether an individual’s general political interest affects situation-specific per-

ceptions and cognitive frames. We predicted that political interest would be positively associated

with problem recognition (H9a), involvement recognition (H9c), and referent criterion (H9d),

although the same variable would be negatively linked to constraint recognition (H9b). Data

showed no support for H9a (coefficient¼ .07, p¼ ns) but provided considerable support for

the other hypotheses: H9b (coefficient¼�.49, p< .001), H9c (coefficient¼ .13, p< .05), H9d(coefficient¼ .34, p< .001).

H10 tests whether an individual’s hot-issue related action (i.e., protest participation) is related

to greater situational perceptions and cognitive frames. Protest participation indicated positive

FIGURE 2 Results of model tests. (Figure available in color online.)

156 KIM ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

56 1

7 A

pril

2012

links to problem (H10a, coefficient¼ .12, p< .10) and constraint (H10b, coefficient¼ .14,

p< .10) recognition, although the coefficients did not reach the conventional levels of statistical

significance. When applied to H10c and H10d, the same variable was positively and significantly

related with involvement recognition (coefficient¼ .18, p< .05) and referent criterion

(coefficient¼ .23, p< .001).

Finally, RQ1 questions whether cross-situational variables, such as gender, age, and socioe-

conomic status, affect the situation-specific perceptions and cognitive frames one deploys

regarding a hot issue. As shown in Figure 2, age was the only variable that indicated significant

paths. Age was associated negatively with problem (coefficient¼�.28, p< .001) and involve-

ment (coefficient¼�.23, p< .001) recognition, suggesting that older participants were less

likely to perceive the situation as a problem and less likely to feel closely involved.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this article was to test the cross-cultural applicability of the STOPS. Our use of

structural equation modeling provided considerable support for the theorized links between

the key variables in the situational theory. Involvement recognition was positively related to

situational motivation in problem solving, and constraint recognition was negatively related.

All six dependent variables were positively related to the second-order variable of communicat-

ive action in problem solving. Finally, both situational motivation and the use of a referent cri-

terion were positively related to communicative action. The relationship between problem

recognition and situational motivation, however, was not significant.

This replication of the theory of problem solving suggests that the theory can be applied to

different cultures to explain each of the three types of information behaviors ranging from pass-

ive to active. We also demonstrated the importance of involvement recognition, constraint rec-

ognition, and the presence of referent criteria in accounting for one’s motivation for active and

passive communication behaviors.

Problem Recognition and Hot Issue

Notably, our data did not support the relationship between problem recognition and situational

motivation. One possible reason is the nature of the hot issue itself. The issue we examined,

the decision to resume imports of US beef, has drawn massive media coverage in South Korea

for over 6 months. The issue was thus recognizable to almost everyone. It is likely that the vari-

ation in problem recognition was too small to capture its effects on situational motivation.

Because hot issues are heavily covered by the media, it is not surprising that most respondents

recognized the presence of the problematic situation. However, it is interesting to report that

the sense of connectedness and being constrained in doing something still varied considerably

across the respondents.

Practically speaking, when designing public relations strategies for a hot issue, it will be

important for practitioners to pay close attention to how to create and enact effective counter-

measures as a way of reducing problem recognition among the population. Problem recognition

is a key variable for determining whether a person is a member of a latent (or non-) public versus

an aware or active public. If one recognizes a problematic state, the person is at least a member

APPLYING SITUATIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING TO HOT-ISSUE PUBLICS 157

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

56 1

7 A

pril

2012

of an aware public that has good potential for engaging in problem-solving actions. On hot

issues, the size of aware and active publics is generally larger than usual. In this regard, the orga-

nizations related to the problem are exposed to a great risk of encountering wider mobilization of

aware or angry active publics.

The hot issue selected in this study has demonstrated such a great risk, because a substantial

countermeasure was not delivered in time. The issue sparked a series of antigovernment protests

that continued over a 6-month period. The government’s inept, unprepared, and irresponsible

responses triggered prolonged media coverage, which, in turn, put the issue at the center of

controversy.

Political Interests and Protest Participation in Hot-Issue Management

We also tested if one’s general interest in political affairs could influence situational perceptions

and cognitive frames. We expected that political interest could lead to greater problem and

involvement recognition but less constraint recognition. We also predicted that political interest

would increase the referent criterion one activates. In general the findings supported these

predictions.

Past literature has considered hot-issue publics as loose, diffused, volatile, and more easily

dissipated than other types of publics, which are contingent on media coverage (J. E. Grunig.

1997). However, our findings suggest that there is a more potentially active subpopulation in

a hot-issue public, those who have great interest in political affairs and those who develop higher

problematic perceptions and stronger cognitive frames. Practitioners need to realize that mem-

bers of hot-issue publics are not all similar in their characteristics, and particularly in their poten-

tial to act. Such recognition of the existence of more active strategic subsegments may help

practitioners better prepare for interactions with hot-issue publics.

We found that one’s engagement in an issue-related action (i.e., participating in protests)

could increase problem and involvement recognition and decrease constraint recognition. Also,

one’s issue-related action was positively associated with one’s subscription to decision frames. If

a hot issue becomes a chronic issue, some active members of the hot-issue public are likely to

engage in action, which could, in turn, create a deeper entrenchment in their own perspectives

and preferred solutions. Resolving the issue will then become more difficult and costly because

of the increased information forefending and forwarding=sharing between active and less-active

members of a hot-issue public (Ni & Kim, 2009). Thus, earlier intervention would be a more

strategic choice for better issue management (J.-N. Kim et al., 2008).

Cross-Situational Characteristics on Situational Perceptions and Cognitions

Our RQ1 examined whether demographics could make a difference in situational perceptions and

cognitive frames that one deploys in addressing a hot-issue situation. The data indicated that

demographics were largely unrelated to perceptions and cognitions. Two exceptions were the

links from age to problem recognition and to involvement recognition, suggesting that older

people tend to perceive the US beef import issue as less problematic and feel less connected.

Because the older generations in South Korea tend to be more pro-American and pro-government

(S.-H. Kim & Han, 2005), they may find the government decision to resume imports of US beef

158 KIM ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

56 1

7 A

pril

2012

less problematic and feel less personally connected. However, there were no differences between

genders and socioeconomic subgroups in terms of situational variables. Overall, these findings

are consistent with previous studies that have indicated an overriding effect of situational factorsover cross-situational characteristics, such as demographics (J. E. Grunig, 1997; Ni, 2003; J.-N.

Kim et al., 2009).

Implications for Theory Building

This study is one of the few cross-cultural studies that use the STOPS in the context of a socio-

political hot issue. Media-driven hot-issue publics have been largely unexplored in the literature.

Our study enhances the generalizability of the situational theory in different social settings and

also demonstrates theoretical utility in a special type of media-driven hot-issue publics. In

addition, situational theory has been typically tested in multiple problems that affect publics

or the interests of organizations. Some researchers have questioned whether conceptual relation-

ships would remain similar if the study focused solely on a single issue (J.-N. Kim & J. E.

Grunig, 2011). This study addresses this question in detail and finds that theoretical models hold

as they do in studies testing multiple issues.

Furthermore, this study investigates the effects of cross-situational variables on situational

perceptions. Such effects were questioned in the past (e.g., J. E. Grunig. 1997) but never tested

empirically. Our findings suggest that such cross-situational variables as demographics (gender,

age, and socioeconomic status) are largely unrelated to situational variables. These findings are

quite consistent with what J. E. Grunig reasoned in his review of situational theory. However, we

found that prior political knowledge and political actions (e.g., protest participation) could

augment situational perceptions among the members of a public. We believe these findings con-

tribute to the conceptual advancement of the situational theory.

Finally, our findings suggest that hot-issue publics can consist of diverse subgroups that differ

considerably in terms of their openness toward information selectivity (information forefending)

and their potentials for information circulation (information forwarding and sharing) within social

networks (see Figure 1). Relatedly, Ni and Kim’s (2009) study on different types of publics

explains that not all publics are the same on social issues; they differ in terms of the history of

problem solving, proactiveness, and openness in problem solving. Consistently, the STP has

shown that the direction of attitudes (i.e., whether one is in favor of or in opposition to something)

is less useful, and thus findings are less consistent, than the degree or extent of one’s information

behaviors (J. E. Grunig, 1997). However, in future research it will also be interesting to examine

the composition of hot-issue publics, such as their positions (e.g., advocates vs. antagonists) or the

different levels of support of the subpublics to an organization within the hot-issue publics. In that

regard, the contingency theory (Cancel, Cameron, Sallot, & Mitrook, 1997; Cancel, Mitrook, &

Cameron, 1999) may be further strengthened.

Limitations

It is important to point out a few limitations of this study. First, the study adopts a nonprobability

sample with a relatively small sample size. Even though the demographic make-up of the sample

matched closely with that of the general population, our use of a nonprobability sample does

APPLYING SITUATIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING TO HOT-ISSUE PUBLICS 159

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

56 1

7 A

pril

2012

limit the generalizability of our findings. We must also mention that our use of cross-situational

variables was limited to political knowledge and demographic variables. Other potential

cross-situational variables, such as psychological traits (e.g., need for cognition) or social char-

acteristics (e.g., social embeddedness), should be included in the model and further tested in

future research.

REFERENCES

Aldoory, L. (2001). Making health communications meaningful for women: Factors that influence involvement and the

situational theory of publics. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13, 163–185.

Aldoory, L., & Grunig, J. E. (2012). The rise and fall of hot-issue publics: Relationships that develop from media cover-

age of events and crises. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 6, 93–108, 2012.Aldoory, L., & Sha, B. L. (2006). Elaborations of the situational theory of publics for more effective application to public

relations scholarship and practice. In E. L. Toth (Ed.), The future of excellence in public relations and communication

management (pp. 339–355). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Aldoory, L., & Van Dyke, M. (2006). The roles of perceived ‘‘shared’’ involvement and information overload in

understanding: How audiences make meaning of news about bioterrorism. Journalism and Mass Communication

Quarterly, 83(2), 346–361.

Aldoory, L., Kim, J.-N., & Tindall, N. (2010). The influence of perceived shared risk in crisis communication: Elabor-

ating the situational theory of publics. Public Relations Review, 36, 134–140.

Ban, Z. (2010). Situational motivations of information forwarding behavior. Paper presented at International Communi-

cation Association Conference, Singapore, June 22–26, 2010.

Bargh, J. A. (1996). Automaticity in social psychology. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology:Handbook of basic principles (pp. 169–183). New York, NY: Guilford.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice

Hall.

Carter, R. F. (1965). Communication and affective relations. Journalism Quarterly, 42, 203–212.Cancel, A. E., Cameron, G. T., Sallot, L. M., & Mitrook, M. A. (1997). It depends: A contingency theory of accommo-

dation in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9, 31–63.

Cancel, A. E., Mitrook, M. A., & Cameron, G. T. (1999). Testing the contingency theory of accommodation in public

relations. Public Relations Review, 25, 171–197.

Clarke, P., & Kline, F. G. (1974). Mass media effects reconsidered: Some new strategies for communication research.

Communication Research, 1, 224–270.

Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston, MA: D. C. Heath.

Fink, A. (2003). How to sample in surveys (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Fiske, S. T., & Linville, P. W. (1980). What does the schema concept buy us? Symposium on social knowing. Person-

ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 543–557.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

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

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

Grunig, J. E. (1971). Communication and the economic decision making processes of Colombian peasants. EconomicDevelopment and Cultural Change, 19, 580–597.

Grunig, J. E. (1976). Communication behaviors in decision and nondecision situations. Journalism Quarterly, 53,

232–263.

Grunig, J. E. (1989). Publics, audiences and market segments: Models of receivers of campaign messages. In C. T.

Salmon (Ed.), Information campaigns: Managing the process of social change (pp. 197–226). Newbury Park,

CA: Sage.

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

T. MacManus & D. Vercic (Eds.), Public relations research: An international perspective (pp. 3–46). London, UK:International Thompson Business Press.

160 KIM ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

56 1

7 A

pril

2012

Grunig, J. E. (2003). Constructing public relations theory and practice. In B. Dervin, S. Chaffee & L. Foreman-Wernet

(Eds.), Communication, another kind of horse race: Essays honoring Richard F. Carter (pp. 85–115). Cresskill, NJ:

Hampton Press.

Grunig, J. E. (2005). Situational theory of publics. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Encyclopedia of public relations (pp. 778–780).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Grunig, J. E., Ferrari, M. A., & Franca, F. (2009). Relacoes publicas: Teoria, contexto e relacionamentos [Public

relations: Theory, context, and relationships]. Sao Paulo, Brazil: Difusao Editora.

Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organization: A study ofcommunication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

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

Hallahan, K. (2001). The dynamics of issues activation and response: An issues processes model. Journal of Public

Relations Research, 13, 27–59.Hancock, G. R. (2006). Power analysis in covariance structure modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.),

Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 69–115). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation, application, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.),

Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 237–275). New York, NY: Guilford.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariances structure analysis: Conventional criteria

versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

Kim, J.-N., & Grunig, J. E. (2011). Problem solving and communicative action: A situational theory of problem solving.

Journal of Communication, 61, 120–149.

Kim, J.-N., Grunig, J. E., & Ni, L. (2010). Reconceptualizing the communicative action of publics: Acquisition, selection,

and transmission of information in problematic situations. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 4, 1–29.

Kim, J.-N., Jung, Y.-R., Park, S. C., & Dutta, M. (2009). Gossiping science: Lay diffusers of science knowledge andinformation. Chicago, IL: Applied Communication Division, National Communication Association.

Kim, J.-N., & Ni, L. (2009, March). Creating a theory-driven strategic public relations procedure: Linking segmentation

and evaluation in two types of public relations problems. Paper presented at the Twelfth Annual International Public

Relations Conference, Miami, FL.

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.

Kim, J.-N., & Rhee, Y. (2011). Strategic thinking about employee communication behaviour (ECB) in public relations:

Testing the models of megaphoning and scounting effects in Korea. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23(3),

243–268.

Kim, J.-N., Shen, H., & Morgan, S. (2011). Information behaviors and problem chain recognition effect: Applying situa-

tional theory of problem solving in organ donation issues. Health Communication, 26, 171–184.Kim, S.-H., & Han, M. (2005). Media use and participatory democracy in South Korea: News media vs. entertainment

media. Mass Communication & Society, 8, 133–153.

Kline, L. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.

Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational bases. New York, NY:

Plenum.

Kruglanski, A. W. (1996). Motivated social cognition: Principles of the interface. In E. T. Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski

(Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 493–520). New York, NY: Guilford.

Kruglanski, A. W., & Thompson, E. P. (1999). Persuasion by a single route: A view from the unimodel. PsychologicalInquiry, 10, 83–109.

Krugman, H. E. (1965). The impact of television advertising: Learning without involvement. Public Opinion Quartely,

29, 349–356.Lovelock, C. H., & Weinberg, C. B. (1984). Marketing for public and nonprofit managers. New York, NY: John Wiley.

Ni, L. (2003, May). Cross-situational component of the situational theory. Paper presented in the Public Relations

division, International Communication Association, San Diego, CA.

Ni, L., & Kim, J.-N. (2009). Classifying publics: Communication behaviors and problem-solving characteristics in

controversial issues. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 3, 217–241.

Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances

in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 123–205). New York, NY: Academic Press.

APPLYING SITUATIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING TO HOT-ISSUE PUBLICS 161

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

56 1

7 A

pril

2012

Ramanadhan, S., & Viswanath, K. (2006). Health and the information nonseeker: A profile. Health Communication, 20,131–139.

Salmon, C. T. (1986). Perspectives on involvement in consumer and communication research. In B. Dervin & M. T.

Voigt (Eds.), Progress in communication sciences (Vol. 7, pp. 243–269). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

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

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

Simon, H. (1957). Administrative behavior (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Slater, M. D. (1997). Persuasion processes across receiver goals and messages genres. Communication Theory, 7,125–148.

Snow, D. A., & Benford, R. D. (1992). Master frames and cycles of protest. In A. D. Morris & C. Mueller (Eds.),

Frontiers of social movement theories (pp. 133–155). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

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

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

Tindall, N., & Vardeman, J. (2008, August). Identity, culture, and heart disease communication. Top Faculty Paper

presented in the Commission on the Status of Women Division at the Association for Education in Journalism

and Mass Communication, Chicago, IL.

Vardeman, J. E. & Aldoory, L. (2008). A qualitative study of how women make meaning of contradictory media

messages about the risks of eating fish. Health Communication, 23, 282–291.

Vasquez, G. M., & Taylor, M. (2001). Research perspectives on ‘‘the public.’’ In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of publicrelations (pp. 139–154). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Zaichkowsky, J. L. (1986). Conceptualizing involvement. Journal of Advertising, 15, 4–34.

APPENDIX 1: INSTRUMENTS FOR SITUATIONAL THEORYOF PROBLEM SOLVING (A SHORT VERSION)

Information Forefending

. I have invested enough time and energy to understand this problem.

. I know where to go when I need updated information regarding this problem.

. I have studied this problem enough to judge the value of information.

Information Permitting

. To make better decisions regarding this problem, I listen to opposite views and

information as long as they are related to the problem.

. I am careful in accepting information about this problem because of the vested interests

of those who provided the information. (R)

Information Forwarding

. I sometimes find I am engaging in aggressive conversations on this problem.

. It is one of my top priorities to share my knowledge and perspective about this problem.

. If it is possible, I take time to explain this problem to others.

. I look for chances to share my knowledge and thoughts about this problem.

Information Sharing

. I am a person to whom my friends and others come to learn more about this problem.

. In the past, I researched this problem seriously.

162 KIM ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

56 1

7 A

pril

2012

Information Seeking

. I regularly check to see if there is any new information about this problem on the

Internet.

. I would request booklets containing relevant knowledge about the problem.

. I visit an online or regular bookstore to find useful information about the problem.

Information Attending

. I pay attention to the problem when a news report appears on TV news.

. I may take some time to listen if someone tries to give me information about this

problem.

Problem Recognition

. To what extent do you think there is something missing about this issue?

. How much does the current situation differ from your expectations?

. How strongly do you feel that something needs to be done to improve the situation for

this problem?

Constraint Recognition

. Please consider whether you, personally, could do anything that would make a differ-

ence in the way these problems are handled. If you wanted to do something, would your

efforts make a difference? (R)

. To what extent do you believe that you could affect the way this problem is eventually

solved if you wanted to? (R)

Involvement Recognition

. In your mind, how much of a connection do you see between yourself and this problem?

. To what extent do you believe this problem could involve you or someone close to you

at some point?

. How much do you believe this problem affects or could affect you personally?

Referent Criterion

. I know how I should behave regarding this problem.

. I strongly support a certain way of resolving this problem.

. Past experience has provided me with guidelines for solving this problem.

Situational Motivation in Problem Solving

. How often do you stop to think about this problem?

. To what extent would you say you are curious about this problem?

. Please indicate how much you would like to understand this problem better.

APPLYING SITUATIONAL PROBLEM SOLVING TO HOT-ISSUE PUBLICS 163

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

56 1

7 A

pril

2012

Political Interest

. I enjoy reading political news in newspapers and magazines.

. I personally subscribe or used to subscribe to magazines and printed publications that

cover political issues or agendas.

. I enjoy talking about news or information about political issues with friends or family.

. Even if there are no particular political hot issues I enjoy conversations with acquain-

tances about political topics or news.

164 KIM ET AL.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Purd

ue U

nive

rsity

] at

06:

56 1

7 A

pril

2012