Reconceptualizing the Communicative Action of Publics: Acquisition, Selection, and Transmission of Information in Problematic Situations

Abstract

This article proposes a new concept about communication behaviors related to problem solving. Communicative action is epiphenomenal to problem solving: As problem solvers, members of a public use communication as an instrument to cope with their problematic life situations. A good theoretical description of the communicative features of problem solving, therefore, is critical to understanding the social phenomena related to the development and behavior of publics. In existing literature, however, communication behaviors are conceptualized mostly as acts of information acquisition with little regard to other communicative actions such as information transmission. In this article, we propose a new model, communicative action in problem solving, which encompasses broader aspects of communication behaviors related to a problematic life situation: information acquisition, information selection, and information transmission. We then test the reliability and validity of the new construct for one personal and two social problems. Finally, we discuss the theoretical and practical implications of the new concept for public relations research and practice.

Notes

¹We define a “problem” as “a perceptual discrepancy between expected and experienced states in a given situation that produces an uncomfortable feeling of badness-of-fit” that one experiences in living (Kim & Grunig, in press). “Problem solving” refers to one's effort to decrease the perceived discrepancy (Kim & Grunig, in press).

²These three concepts are key building blocks of information science and communication, yet Zins (2007) documented 130 definitions of data, information, and knowledge raised by 45 scholars. Such a large number of definitions suggest the importance but also the difficulty of achieving unified conceptual meanings. After reviewing these definitions, Case (2007) concluded that information is a “primitive concept that is so basic to human understanding that it does not require a tight definition” (p. 66). Nevertheless, he followed Bateson (1972) and defined information broadly as “any difference that makes a difference to a conscious human mind (pp. 40, 66). In the present study, we adopt conceptual meanings for these terms that have been advanced in the communication field, but these meanings are consistent with Case's definition of information.

³ Saracevic (2007) has provided a comprehensive review of the meaning of relevance. He argued that relevance is “like a tree of knowledge” (p. 1931). From his review, he summarized what relevance could mean in information science: 1) system or algorithmic relevance, 2) topical or subject relevance, 3) cognitive relevance or pertinence, 4) situational relevance or utility, and 5) affective relevance. We concur with Saracevic's conclusion. Using his classification we note that our usage of relevance could any of 2) to 5) in his list, except “system or algorithmic relevance.”

⁴ Chaffee, Stamm, Guerrero, and Tipton (1969) noted that the concepts of selective perception, selective exposure, and selective communication (i.e., avoidance and seeking) have problems: “At any rate, it is impossible to distinguish between these two kinds of behavior in that study, so the more inclusive term selective exposure is used, to indicate that selective behavior of either type is under observation” (p. 17).

⁵Upon request, authors will provide all the instruments for six subvariables. The instruments can also be found in Kim & Grunig (forthcoming).

⁶We added error covariances and disturbance covariances in modeling when they were conceptually reasonable. Thus, in some models, the degrees of freedom were slightly different even in the same factor models (e.g., the second-order factor models) across three problems.