New Page 2

Thomlison, T. Dean (2000). An interpersonal primer with implications for public relations. In J. Ledingham & S. Bruning (Eds.), Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations (pp. 177-203). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Introduction

This chapter offers a primer on interpersonal communication theories with the potential to contribute to public relations theory generation, model building and practice. The primary objective of the chapter is to provide a praxis -- a merging of theory and practice. Praxis leads to theoretically informed application, which is the overall purpose for this entire volume. The chapter contains a brief discussion of the nature of relationships, a review of the evolution of the transactional model of communication, and an examination of selected interpersonal communication theories and models. Suggestions on possible applications and implications for public relations are given throughout the discussion.

The phrase "public relations" is used in this chapter as a general label encompassing a host of activities including investor relations, membership relations, outreach, health advocacy, public affairs, public information, risk communication, strategic marketing, strategic planning, crisis management, constituent relations, community relations, and many others. As Botan (1997) points out, such terms are commonly used in advertising, marketing, and health promotion instead of "public relations."

It is hoped that a brief review of interpersonal communication and its potential applicability for public relations theory and practitice may serve to create a greater appreciation of their complementary nature. An obvious starting point for this examination is to establish a basic understanding of the fundamental nature relationships.

The Nature of Relationships

Defining "Relationship"

Public relations and interpersonal communication have a common core--relationships. A relationship has been defined as a set of expectations two parties have for each other's behavior based on their interaction patterns. A more extensive definition of a relationship has also been advanced:

The connection that exists when (1) the interactants are aware of each other and take each other into account, (2) there is some exchange of influence, and (3) there is some agreement about what the nature of the relationship is and what the appropriate behaviors are given the nature of the relationship. (Berko, et. al., 1997, p. 448)

According to this definition, mutuality of awareness, influence, benefit, and behavior are all part of successful relationships. Thus, "relationship management" in public relations settings implies the development, maintenance, growth, and nurturing of mutually beneficial relationships between organizations and their significant publics.

Dimensions of Satisfying Relationships

It is not enough to simply know what a relationship is. Before a public relations specialist can build and maintain a relationship, it is necessary to know the basic elements or building blocks of a healthy, mutually fulfilling relationship. A review of more than 700 articles and books by Wood (1995) isolated four essential dimensions of satisfying interpersonal relationships: (1) investment, (2) commitment, (3) trust, and (4) comfort with relational dialectics.

Investments refers to the time, energy, feelings, effort and other resources given to build the relationship. The perception of equality of investments influences the level of satisfaction one experiences. For example, research on couples who are most satisfied with their relationships reveals that both partners believe each is investing equally in the relationship (Fletcher, et. al., 1987; Hecht, et. al., 1994).

Commitment is the personal choice to continue a relationship. It adds the element of responsibility to a relationship by facing inevitable relational difficulties together. This means problems are viewed as opportunities to mutually solve and strengthen the relationship rather than as an excuse to terminate the relationship.

Trust refers to a feeling that relational partners can rely on each other. A high degree of predictability exists because each believes their partner is dependable, reliable, forthright, and trustworthy--that is, worthy of being trusted to do what is in the best interest of maintaining their long-term relationship. Each relies on the other to protect the welfare of the relationship. (Brehm, 1992)

Comfort With Relational Dialectics involves the numerous opposing forces on relationships which generate tensions and require a delicate balance if relational equilibrium is to be maintained. Wood cites three examples: autonomy/connection, openness/closedness, and novelty/predictability (1996, pp. 185-6). For example, most people feel a natural desire to be connected to others but at the same time require a certain amount of autonomy. In an organizational context, there may be opposing "pulls" in which an individual may expect an organization to act in his or her best interest, but at the same time may resist the need that organization may have for certain types of private information. Dialectical tension can generate frustration, distrust, and disloyalty in both personal and organizational settings.

Evolution of the Transactional Model of Interpersonal Communication

Transmission Model

As with public relations, the study of interpersonal communication has evolved significantly over the last thirty years or so. Early interpersonal models viewed the communication process as primarily one-way. These simplistic models originally grew out of rhetorical and mass communication perspectives and terminology. These Individualistic orTransmission Models viewed messages as emanating from a sender and directed toward a receiver. According to this stimulus-response model, messages were basically aimed at receivers almost like projectiles. (Figure 1) Like the transmission model, the press agentry model (striving for favorable publicity) and the public information model ("journalist in residence" distributing information through various mass media) are one-way models. Grunig (1992) points out that both these public relations models are asymmetrical one-way models because "they try to make the organization look good either through propaganda (press agentry) or by disseminating only favorable information (public information)" (p. 18).

(Figure 1: Transmission Model)

Feedback Model

The addition of feedback to the transmission model resulted in a Two-Way Interaction or Feedback Model in which messages are sent in response to messages received. (Figure 2)

(Figure 2: Feedback Model)

The importance of the feedback model is that instead of viewing communication as the one-way aiming of messages as the transmission model did, it was seen as a trading of messages or information. It is similar to the two-way asymmetrical model of public relations which uses the feedback of research "to identify messages most likely to motivate or persuade publics" (Grunig, 1992, p. 289). Although still a linear model, the feedback model recognizes the reciprocal and cyclical nature of communication. However, it still lacks insight about the dynamic process nature of human communication.

Variables Model

Likewise, the SMCR orVariables Model originally suggested by Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver in 1949 and modified by others including David Berlo (Figure 3) simply noted visually the major components of communication without attempting to incorporate the processes operating between the four major variables of his model: source, message, channel, and receiver (Berlo, 1960). A source (S) is the person who encodes the message, using such codes as verbal, nonverbal, visual, musical, or any other modality. Sources are influenced by the proficiency of their communication skills, their attitudes, level of knowledge on the subject at hand, the social system within which they are operating and their cultural environment, among others. A message (M) is used to convey the source's meaning by means of any of the codes. A channel (C) is the method of carrying the source's message using any combination of the basic senses. "Noise", anything which distorts or alters the original intended message, is also inherently part of a channel. A receiver (R) is the person who decodes the message, including the filtering of channel noise and the interpreting of the message based on such factors as communication skill level, attitudes, knowledge, social system and culture.

(Figure 3: Berlo's Variables Model)

Source: "A Model of the Ingredients in Communication" from The Process of Communication: An Introduction to Theory and Practice by David Berlo, copyright 1960 by Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. and renewed in 1988 by David K. Berlo.

Transactional Model

The current evolutionary development of basic interpersonal communication models is the Transactional Model of communication, first proposed by Barnlund (1970) and subsequently refined by other theorists (Figure 4). Departing from a linear view of communication which had its rhetorical/persuasion seeds before the time of Aristotle, the transactional model posits that interpersonal communication is a dynamic, process-oriented activity in which the two participants are simultaneously sending and receiving messages. Anderson and Ross summarize the model as follows: "Encoding and decoding are not alternating subprocesses of communication, however, but are mutually dependent, each contributing to the meaning the communicators are building together (Anderson and Ross, 1994, pp. 81-82). The two-way symmetrical model identified by Grunig and Hunt (1984) takes a transactional view of public relations because the objective is to gain understanding rather than to persuade.

(Figure 4: Barnlund's Transactional Model)

Furthermore, human beings are too complex to be viewed as simple depositories of information trading messages with other depositories; a function that can be met by the simplest computer. We can do much more. As human beings, we have an extraordinary repertoire of communication skills centering around our unique capacity to engage in the mutual creation of meaning when we communicate with another person (Thomlison, 1982, p. 8). The transactional model acknowledges that communication is a delicate process evolving from the joining of two participants into a relationship that is more than the sum of its parts.

The transactional model of communication also views all behavior as having the potential of being meaningful to others, whether intended or not. This is an important distinction because it means we do not necessarily communicate what we attempt to communicate and we may be communicating even when we are not attempting to do so. Once a transaction is underway we cannot avoid communicating, even when we try. This basic interpersonal axiom can also be applied to the communication between an organization and its individual publics--its "public" relationships. The model sees human communication as much more than a conveyor belt upon which messages are traded--arriving in the same basic condition as the message which was sent. The main point of this model is that communication is a dynamic, process-oriented, meaning-creating relationship between the two participating parties.

Selected Interpersonal Communication Theories and Models

The remainder of this chapter focuses on selected concepts from the discipline of interpersonal communication. Although not exhaustive, these interpersonal theories and models suggest a few of the many implications possible for public relations activities.

Social Exchange Theory

Social exchange theory provides a further extension and elaboration of the relational dimensions of investment and commitment, which were among Wood's four components of satisfying personal relationships discussed earlier. It is one of the most useful interpersonal theories for explaining why and when relationships begin, are maintained, and end. Social exchange theories, first advanced in the disciplines of psychology and sociology, have been applied to relational communication by Roloff (1981) and others with significant success (Liska and Cronkhite, 1995). Sometimes referred to as economic balance theory, social exchange theory states that social relationships involve the exchange of resources such as status, information, goods, services, money, intimacy, friendship, companionship, social acceptance, security and love (Knapp, 1984; Devito, 1996). In a nutshell, this theory holds that people tend to develop relationships in which profits are maximized. Profit equals rewards minus costs. Rewards are anything that one would incur costs to obtain. Relationships, this perspective suggests, usually are maintained as long as rewards exceed costs, and usually are terminated when costs are greater than rewards.

The giving and receiving of physical and psychological resources can be viewed as costs and rewards. Rewards provide pleasures, satisfactions, and gratifications which reduce a drive or meet a need. Costs are factors which deter a desired sequence of behaviors or deny the meeting of a need. Kelley and Thibaut explain: "Thus, cost is high when great physical or mental effort is required, when embarrassment or anxiety accompany the action, or when there are conflicting forces or competing response tendencies of any sort" (Kelley and Thibaut, 1959, pp. 12-13).

This "economic model" of relationships says each person in a relationship has a certain standard or expectation for the behavior of their partner. Individuals enter relationships with a general notion of the types of rewards and profits which can realistically be desired and deserved from the relationship. When this standard or Comparison Level (CL) is reached or exceeded, satisfaction with the partner and the relationship results. Perceived rewards or value usually outweigh perceived costs in such cases. Meeting or exceeding a relational partner's expectations for the relationship becomes vital to that relationship's quality and longevity. Littlejohn cites studies by Taylor and Altman indicating that "relational partners not only assess the rewards and costs of the relationship at a given moment but also use the information they have gathered to predict the rewards and costs in the future" (Littlejohn, p. 264)

How much cost over rewards a person will accept and remain in a relationship depends on that individual's Comparison Level for Alternatives. (CLalt). That is, if there are other equally attractive or more attractive choices available to a person, then there will be less tolerance for anything below the standard for satisfaction. (Figure 5) Deterioration of the relationship or movement to an alternative relationship occurs when costs exceed rewards or greater profits are available in another relationship. According to this model, relationship participants compare current relationship profits with the imagined profits from other available relationships. In essence, having other viable choices available will reduce an individual's acceptance of anything less than his or her expectation for satisfaction. Of course, level of commitment to that relationship and how much one has invested in the relationship also affects how much attention one pays to other available choices. Having numerous options tends to raise or increase the Comparison Level or standard for satisfaction. As a relationship develops, we tend to build a cumulative balance of costs and rewards (Altman, 1973)

In short, if several options are available we tend to be dissatisfied unless our expectation level is met or exceeded and we may select from the other viable alternatives which will provide more rewards for the same or less costs. If one can (1) determine the other choices available and thus establish a fairly accurate idea of the Comparison Level for Alternatives and (2) determine the Comparison Level or level of satisfaction for a given partner, it is possible to predict when this person will terminate or maintain a particular relationship.

(Figure 5: Social Exchange Model)

However, this is not simply traditional economic theory applied in an interpersonal context. In an article titled "Toward a Theory of Value in Social Exchange," Richard M. Emerson points out the critical difference:

At its core, neoclassical economic theory views the actor (a person or a fire) as dealing not with other actors but with a market. In economic theory, decisions are made by actors not in response to, or in anticipation of, the decision of another party but in response to environmental parameters such as market price....By contrast, in the various forms of social exchange theory, the longitudinal exchange relation between two specific actors is the central concept around which theory is organized....Social exchange theory studies person-environment relations (Cook, 1987, pp. 11-12).

Clearly, social exchange theory is a departure from traditional marketing perspectives in public relations, offering a refreshing interpersonal, relationship-sensitive perspective which has powerful implications and applications for public relations study, research, and practice.

Implications for Relational Management

The research and theories presented in this chapter and throughout this text suggest that relational dimensions such as Wood's four can be applied to non-interpersonal relationships between an organization and individual members of its publics. We now have quantitative research findings to demonstrate that these relational dimensions can be used to identify the desired level of satisfaction (Comparison Level) for individual consumers in their relationship with a specific organization, and thereby predict the amount of rewards necessary to maintain a given relationship. Likewise, it is possible to determine the specific level of rewards offered by alternative choices (competitors) necessary to overcome the commitment a consumer has with their current organizational relationship (Ledingham, Bruning, Thomlison and Lesko, 1997).

This suggests that the level of expectation for stakeholder satisfaction (Comparison Level) is a key component of high quality on-going relationships and, therefore, public relations. For example, Heath likens the relationship between an organization and its significant publics or stakeholders to a courtship. "In this courtship, one important organizational prerogative is its marketing effort which can couple with public relations to foster relationships and advance organizational goals but which can create unsatisfied expectations about product or service performance which motivate stakeholders to demand their expectations be fulfilled" (Heath, 1993, p. 144). It is apparent that public relations practitioners must monitor the Comparison Level of their publics if their relationship building and relationship management is to be maximally effective.

The social exchange model also alerts public relations practitioners to the vital role of relational adaptation to changing needs, expectations, and environmental demands in its relationships with various stakeholders such as vendors, employees, political bodies, suppliers, as well as individual customers. For example, a study of 237 customer-supplier relationships between European manufacturing firms confirmed that interfirm adaptations are essential elements in the social exchange process (Hallen, et. al., 1991). Hallen and his colleagues also propose a structural model of "interfirm adaptation" based on social exchange and resource-dependency perspectives.

There are several other relational theories closely aligned with social exchange theory which cannot be extensively covered here due to space limitations, yet they hold great promise for application to public relations. For example, several theories examine the methods used by people to lower the amount of ambiguity in their relationships. Uncertainty Reduction Theory (Berger and Bradac, 1982) explores a variety of strategies used by communicators to gather information about the people with whom they interact. The theory shows the importance of uncertainty reduction, especially in the early stages of relationships. Gudykunst (1988) applied the theory to intercultural situations and Sunnafrank (1986) evolved the theory into what he termed the Predicted Outcome Value Theory. Sunnafrank contends that most people do not seek information just to reduce uncertainty for its own sake, but rather to use that information to determine potential negative or positive communication outcomes and partner selection. The theory suggests that people tend to pursue those relationships they predict will produce the most positive outcomes and, in initial relationships, those topics they believe will be most rewarding. In addition to Sunnafrank's, there are several other decision theories such as Fishbein's Theory of Reasoned Action. As with social exchange theory, these Subjective Expected Utility Theories were originally developed to analyze and explain decisions in economics (Liska and Cronkhite, 1995), but potential applications to relationship communication and public relations are many.

Stages of a Relationship

Researchers, theorists, and scientists are constantly attempting to find order and systemization to our rather chaotic and unstable world. Child development experts note general patterns in the stages of growth from infancy through childhood and adolescence and into maturity. Biologists divide plants and animals into various categorical families or phylum based on similarities and life cycles. Interpersonal communication theorists likewise seek to find patterns in order to systematize the blended stages of relational development. Relationship development models generally view relationships as developing systematically and incrementally. However, it should be remembered that seldom is the process as simple nor the transitions to other stages as quick as represented in these relational development models.

Numerous theories and models on the stages in the development, maintenance and dissolution of relationships have been devised over the past forty years. For example, the concept of selective filtering (Kerckhoff and Davis, 1962) hypothesized that we use different criteria in deciding whether to continue a relationship at different stages in that relationship. This view says our filters serve as gates for determining entrance into the next progressive stage of relational development (Duck, 1976). Such models of relationship filters suggest that each of us has our own somewhat unique set of relationship categories such as strangers, acquaintances, friends, close friends, best friend. Each category has its own set of criteria for filtering out those who will move on the next stage, which is more intimate or has a stronger bond. Each progressive stage has fewer people in it because the criteria for exclusion are more stringent with each stage, making it increasingly difficult to "qualify" for the next stage.

Many advocates of exchange theory believe that participants go through a series of four stages in their relational development: (1) sampling, in which we seek those who fit our needs and reward us; (2) bargaining, in which both partners work at developing a mutually satisfying relationship; (3) commitment, the stage in which bonds are formed; and (4) institutionalization, in which there is a public declaration or affirmation of their continued relationship (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959). Institutionalization can take many forms ranging from marriage to business partnerships.

One of the most interesting and comprehensive incremental relational development and deterioration models is an Interaction Stages paradigm originally proposed by Knapp (1984) and later refined with Vangelisti (Knapp and Vangelisti, 1992). The "creeping incrementalism" or movement from one stage to the next is generally systematic and sequential, but there can also be movement within stages and forward or backward movement between stages. The interaction stages of Knapp and Vangelisti's model are:

1. Initiating: the first contact with another and initial reactions.

2. Experimenting: exchange of basic information and attempting to discover the unknown about each other; small talk or phatic communion is common; most relationships do not progress past this point.

3. Intensifying: disclosure of more personal and specific information; forms of address become more informal; more us of inclusive terms such as "we" and "our".

4. Integrating: when two become a pair or act as a unit, develop a shared history, and/or merge their social circles; the relationship can be between family members, romantic partners, friends, or business colleagues.

5. Bonding: a public ritual or formal contract binds the relationship such as marriage, christenings, adoptions, business partnerships, and ceremonies of unity; there is a public commitment to the relationship; communication can now be based on the interpretation and execution of the commitments contained in the contract; bonding is a method of gaining social or institutional support for the relationship.

6. Differentiating: the start of uncoupling and the establishment of more separate identities; fewer joint endeavors; differentiating can be the result of bonding too quickly without sufficient breadth and depth to the relationship.

7. Circumscribing: the communication concentrates more on superficial and public topics with less breadth or depth; communication decreases in amount and becomes more restricted to certain "safe" topics.

8. Stagnation: communication about the relationship ceases; participants may sit in each other's presence for long periods without communicating; there is a great amount of tension in the relationship and it is evident the relationship is in jeopardy.

9. Avoiding: efforts are made to avoid contact with the other party; includes avoidance of physical contact as well as ignoring the other nonverbally and verbally when they are in the same physical space.

10.Terminating: the stage in which one or more participants end the relationship; open access ceases and it is clear the relationship, in its current form, no longer exists.

(Figure 6: Staircase Model of Relationship Stages)

Source: (Social Intercourse: From Greeting to Goodbye, by Mark L. Knapp, Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1978, p. 33)

This model indicates that movement is always to a new place, that relational experiences are always unique to some degree and therefore cannot totally be repeated or erased from one's relational history. Knapp (1984) states that although the communication cannot be precisely predicted, certain patterns are likely. He explains:

We would expect the Initiating and Terminating Stages to be characterized by communication that is more narrow, stylized, difficult, rigid, awkward, public, hesitant, and with overt judgments suspended; the stages of Integrating, Bonding, and Differentiating should show more breadth, uniqueness, efficiency, flexibility, smoothness, personalness, spontaneity, and overt judgments given ( pp. 34-35).

It would logically follow that an examination of the language and other communication behaviors manifested in a relationship could be utilized to determine the probable relational stage. This model highlights (1) the overall development of relationships across time, and (2) the connection between the stages of a relationship. Knapp and Vangelisti (1992) point out that the process is not fixed and linear, but rather a matter of trends or tendencies. Wilmot (1995) observed that the model is biased toward romantic relationships and may not easily apply to other types of relationships. However, the general concept of progressivism in relationship building clearly has multiple applications in a variety of contexts and types of relationships, including those between organizations and their significant publics.

An alternative perspective is offered by the Plateau/Change Model . It argues that the "creeping incrementalism" or progressive development of relationships through a series of stages is not an accurate depiction of the dynamic, subjective, nonlinear nature of human relationships. Duck characterized this model by stating: "We rise from plateau to plateau rather than up a continuously rising gradient of intimacy" (Duck, 1988, p. 49). The patterns of relational change presented by this model can be summarized by as follows:

1. Alternating times of stability followed by "turning points" which are relatively rapid rather than the slow incrementalism depicted by the Interaction Stages paradigm of Knapp and Vangelisti.

2. Oscillation between closeness and more distance, leading to increased

pressure for change in the relationship.

3. Continuous change even when the relationship is relatively stable.

4. Quality of interaction influences relational change more than the mere quantity of communication.

5. Changes in role relationships require a change in the relationship definition, such as from stranger to friend or prospect to customer.

6. A predominant pattern of behavior surrounds most relationships and most do not have intimacy as their central purpose (Wilmot, 1995).

It is not necessarily the frequency of interaction that pushes the relationship to the next plateau; it is mainly driven by how each relational participant perceives the relationship and their self. A relationship can be maintained at a particular level and endure numerous changes until some significant occurrence moves the relationship to a new level. This applies to movement toward a closer, deeper relationship, as well as for movement toward a more distant or dissolving relationship. Friendship, work, business, and family relationship contexts all experience these oscillations both between and within plateaus.

Coorientation Model

Theodore Newcomb (1953) developed a Coorientation Model as a helpful tool in relational analysis of dyadic pairs. This simple yet insightful model consists of two communicators, A and B, and their "orientation" toward some "object of communication", X. The object of communication could be an actual physical object (such as a house which the couple is considering purchasing or a painting in a museum), an event (such as baseball, a rock concert or a christening), an activity (such as playing cards or watching football on television every Sunday), an attitude (such as loving action movies or being opposed to abortion), or a behavior (such as selling Aunt Molly's antique quilt without conferring about it first or donating uniforms to the local little league baseball team). Any subject, behavior, attitude, belief, event, or object which is the focus of communication for the two participants has the potential to be the "object of communication". Each communicator, A and B, has a simultaneous coorientation toward his or her communication partner (usually the level of attraction and feelings toward the partner) and toward the object of communication (the degree of positive or negative attitude about X). Figure 7 illustrates the model.

(Figure 7: Newcomb's A-B-X or Coorientation Model

Source: "An Approach to the Study of Communicative Acts" in Psychological Review, 60: 393-404, 1953, as presented in Dyadic Communication , 3rd. ed., by William W. Wilmot, New York: Random House, 1987, p. 104.

Newcomb sees four basic components of this relational system: (1) A's attitude toward X, (2) A's attraction to B, (3) B's attitude toward X, and (4) B's attraction to A. According to the model, both A and B have a natural propensity toward balance in their coorientation toward X and their partner. If A has a negative attitude toward smoking (X) and a very positive attraction toward B, but B has a positive attitude toward smoking (X) and toward A, then A will experience an imbalance resulting in a push toward revision of attitudes to regain balance. This "strain toward balance" can be resolved by one or a combination of (1) A decreasing the amount of liking for B, (2) A changing his attitude toward X, and (3) A changing B's attitude about X to align with A's. A's actions are dependent on A's own orientations as well as A's perceptions of B's orientations, and vice versa for B. Thus, both communicators are continually making predictions or estimates of their partner's orientations. A has perceptions of what B is thinking and feeling, just as B has perceptions of what A is thinking and feeling. Based on this model, Wilmot (1987) concludes that at the very minimum, any thorough index of a dyadic relationship should include the following two items of information: (1) each person's orientation (that is, their attitude toward the object of communication and their attraction toward their communication partner) and (2) what each person perceives their partner's orientations to be.

This is sound advice for anyone interested in examining the intricacies of relationships, whether they be personal or public-organizational relations. Because of the strain toward balance or symmetry, actions and stands taken by organizations have direct impact on the amount of positive or negative perception of the organization by it's significant publics. This model also lays the foundation for several other relational models of "interpersonal perception" (Drewery, 1969; Ichheiser, 1970; Laing, Phillipson, and Lee, 1966). Furthermore, there are also numerous balance or cognitive consistency models, such as Festinger's Cognitive Dissonance Theory (1957), which offer insights about perception based on the desire for balance between behaviors and beliefs. Such constructs could make important contributions to public relations theory and model building.

Metaperspectives

As the coorientation model illustrates, communication behavior is directly influenced by a person's "experience" of his or her partner. Behavior (such as a touch on the arm, a handshake, or a wink) is observable, while an individual's experience of that behavior is a personal, internal process based on a wealth of factors ranging from context, culture, past experiences, perceived nature of the relationship, roles operating, and so forth. A person can only infer another's experience. A relationship is defined by one's perceptions of the other's behaviors and feelings. R. D. Laing's relational perception theory holds that our communication is affected by our perception of the relationship and that communication partners are mutually affecting each other continuously during a transaction (Laing, 1969). He believed that an aware communicator understands that the behavior of one's partner is a function of one's own behaviors and perceptions.

The Interpersonal Perception Method (Laing, Phillipson, and Lee, 1966) can be useful in unwrapping the perceptual layers in any type of relationship, ranging from personal to business settings. Each person in a relationship has three major levels of experience or perception named "perspectives": (1) direct perspective, (2) metaperspective, and (3) meta-metaperspective. Although these layers of perspectives can theoretically go even deeper (meta-meta-metaperspective, etc.), the first three levels are sufficient for the analysis of most interpersonal interactions.

A direct perspective is a person's view of a behavior, object, person, event, activity, or anything else one observes and interprets in his or her daily world. There is often an evaluation attached to the direct perspective: "I like this fruit", "I love her", "I hate broccoli", "I like that commercial", "I trust that company", "She genuinely cares about my needs." A metaperspective is what a person imagines that another is thinking or feeling. For example, "He likes my hair style", "She is in love with me", "She is afraid of commitment", "That business doesn't care about their customers." A meta-metaperspective is what a person thinks another's metaperspective is: "She thinks I like her poetry", "He believes that I love to ride horses," "She thinks I am in love with her," "Our customers think we are committed to environmental safety." In other words, it is what "A" thinks "B" sees as "A's" direct perspective. Whenever a person attempts to determine another's experience of him or her, meta-metaperspectives are present. Or, put another way, whenever one person presumes to know another person's metaperspective, meta-metaperspectives are present.

Perhaps an illustration will clarify this model (see Figure 8). Tom loves to go to see movies (his direct perspective) and he thinks Barb also likes to go to see movies (his metaperspective). Furthermore, Tom believes that Barb thinks he loves going to movies (his meta-metaperspective). Now, from Barb's point-of-view things look a little different. Barb feels that going to the movies is boring (her direct perspective), but she also believes that Tom loves to go to movies (her metaperspective). In addition, she believes that Tom thinks she likes going to movies (her meta-metaperspective).

(Figure 8: Interpersonal Perspectives Model)

Source: Relational Communication by William W. Wilmot, New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1995, pp. 13-14. Composite graphic of two models.

The degree of matching perspectives is of crucial importance in relationships. The greater the perceptual accuracy, the healthier and more fulfilling a relationship will be. However, as this simple example with Tom and Barb shows, our perspectives are not always accurate and they are not always congruent with our partner's actual experience. On any particular issue, there are four key areas of comparison of perspectives in any dyadic transaction:

1. Comparison between direct perspectives on the same issue results in agreement or disagreement.

2. Comparison between one's own metaperspective and the other's direct perspective results in understanding or misunderstanding.

3. Comparison of one's meta-metaperspective and one's own direct perspective results in feeling understood or feeling misunderstood.

4. Comparison of one's meta-metaperspective and the other's metaperspective results in realization or failure of realization . (Littlejohn, 1996)

Tom and Barb can again be used to illustrate how these comparison areas help pinpoint the specific causes of conflict or confusion in relationships. Since the direct perspectives of the two do not match, this incongruity yields disagreement regarding movie attendance. Tom thinks it is a very enjoyable activity, while Barb thinks it is boring. However, for some reason Tom is not aware of Barb's feelings about attending films. He thinks she likes going to the movies. This incongruity between his metaperspective (she likes going to movies) and her direct perspective (going to movies is boring) results in a misunderstanding. Interestingly, Tom feels understood because he is experiencing congruence between his direct perspective (I love going to movies) and his own meta-metaperspective (Barb thinks I love going to movies). It should be noted that feeling understood is not the same as being understood. Furthermore, Tom's meta-metaperspective (Barb thinks I love going to movies) is congruent with Barb's metaperspective (He loves going to movies), resulting in the realization that Barb knows he loves movies. To summarize, Tom and Barb have a disagreement but he is not aware of it because he has a misunderstanding regarding how she feels about movies. On the other hand, Barb understands that they disagree on movie going (direct to direct). As a result, she feels misunderstood because she realizes that Tom misunderstands how she feels about movies.

As this simple example illustrates, disagreements generate far fewer problems in relationships than do misunderstandings and lack of realization of disagreements. Barb's and Tom's problem was not caused by the disagreement; it was caused by misunderstanding their level of agreement on this issue and a lack of realization of that disagreement. If two communicators understand that they disagree, the issue can be discussed and negotiated. For example, Tom agrees to attend philharmonic concerts which are enjoyed by Barb, and Barb agrees to attend the next film that Tom wants to see. We know that experience affects behavior , so we often behave according to our metaperspectives. Unfortunately, communicators often assume that their metaperspective is the same as their partner's direct perspective. Likewise, members of organizations often assume they know what their employees, customers, vendors, suppliers, and other significant publics want. In traditional approaches to public relations the focus was upon manipulation and control of the metaperspectives of significant publics. If a business organization has a lack of realization and/or misunderstanding of it's publics' perception of the business' community commitment, then the business may suffer financially.

Dimensions of Communication Behavior Model

Most communication models have taken an either/or stance with respect to mediated interaction. That is, traditionally scholars have assumed that communication is either mediated, such as newspapers and television , or not mediated, such as face-to-face interpersonal communication. The Dimensions of Communication Behavior Model offers an alternative perspective was developed by Lievrouw and Finn (1990). They contend that all communication is mediated at some level. Although face-to-face interaction does not utilize the hardware and technology of mass media, this communication is still mediated through the five senses by natural communication channels such as air and light. There is no way to directly experience the messages of others without some form of intermediary means. Thus, according to Lievrouw and Finn, the focus should be on how communication is mediated rather than taking the bipolar perspective of whether it is mediated.

Their model centers on what they call the fundamental dimensions of all communication behavior: involvement, temporality, and control. Involvement refers to the transcending of both physical and psychological distance, ranging from high involvement to low involvement. Temporality focuses on how communicators experience time in their relationships, ranging from simultaneous interaction (participants are sending and receiving messages at the same moment in time) to nonsimultaneous events (there is a time delay between sending and receiving messages). Control involves how much influence is present in the context and how much is exerted by each participant, ranging from equal sharing to dominance by one party.

Figure 9: Lievrouw and Finn's Communication Systems

Arranged within Dimensions of Communication Behavior

Source: Mediation, Information, and Behavior by B. D. Ruben and L. A. Lievrouw (eds.), Transaction Publishers, 1990. As presented in Questions of Communication: A Practical Introduction to Theory by Rob Anderson and Veronica Ross, St. Martin's Press, 1994.

As Figure 9 illustrates, Lievrouw and Finn's model offers a means of locating in physical space the relationship between a particular type of communication and their three basic dimensions of communication. The model also provides a way to visually demonstrate the impact of each dimension and its relationship to the other dimensions. For example, it is clear from Figure 9 that live non-interactive television, such as a local newscast, possesses high sender control, along with high involvement and high simultaneous usage. Likewise, face-to-face interaction has high involvement and high simultaneous usage, but it is generally more equal on control.

While we may disagree with the particular placement of some of the means of communication, the model has strong heuristic value. This model provides and excellent method of comprehending the nature of different mediated social contexts, the characteristics that each type of communication shares or does not share with other means of communication, and the spatial relationship between each. Additionally, the model removes the artificial chasm in thinking and research which has traditionally existed between those engaged in the study and practice of mass communication and interpersonal communication. It is a method of viewing the commonalty of the various multiple means of communication rather than concentrating on their differences. Its creators also emphasize that the specific cultural context of that communication is a key factor in placement on the model. As technology continues its ever-growing number and combinations of ways for human beings to interact, the model provides a convenient and adaptable way to continually update the location and relationship between these methods of mediated communication.

Developing strong relationships with an organization's individual publics requires that public relations practitioners do more than just utilize a mix of mediated communication. The overriding perspective advocated throughout this text is that these are only tools which provide ways for communicators to interact and grow relationships. Rather than being the goal, they are simply a means to an end: building a relationship that can endure the tests of time, adversity, and competing interests.

Some Overall Implications for Public Relations

1. Traditional mass media models lack the level of sophistication needed to understand, develop, maintain, grow, and nurture relationships between organizations and their significant publics.

2. The range of interpersonal communication theories and models offers a wealth of opportunities for researchers, theorists, and practitioners of relational management.

3. Public relations practitioners may be able to improve the quality and longevity of their relationships with significant publics by including Wood's four essential dimensions of satisfying interpersonal relationships: investment, commitment, trust, and comfort with relational dialectics.

4. The transactional model of communication which demonstrates the interdependence of actors in the relationship and the simultaneity of roles can serve as a basis for modeling the potential interaction between organizations and their key publics.

5. The basic axiom that we cannot avoid communicating can likewise be a useful axiom to public relations practitioners, reminding them that lack of communication still sends a message to their publics.

6. Models that identify the progressive stages of relationship development can provide a basis for similar categorization of organization-public relationships.

7. Balance or equilibrium models develop developed around the notion of relational expectancies could serve as the framework for identifying and monitoring mutual expectations among key members of organizations and their publics.

8. The Interpersonal Perception Method or Metaperspectives Model could provide a perspective for bringing greater agreement, understanding, realization, and feelings of being understood to relationships within a public relations context.

9. The Dimensions of Communication Behavior Model can be utilized by public relations practitioners to visualize the relationship between the various means of communication used with an organization's significant publics, as well as the interrelationship between involvement, control, and temporality so adjustments can be made as necessary for relational management.

Conclusion

As indicated at the outset, the primary objective for this chapter is to provide a praxis--a blending of theory and practice. The goal of this chapter and the entire text is to develop theoretically informed practitioners who can "relationalize" public relations by applying these concepts and principles. Relational management will only evolve through an awareness and understanding of this relatively new public relations paradigm and its diverse theoretical foundations. Traditional models of mass communication, grounded in persuasion and manipulation, are far from sufficient to explain and predict the intricacies of public relations as it increasingly moves toward a central focus on relationships within the organization-public context. Hopefully, the few areas for exploration offered in this primer on interpersonal communication theories and models will serve to illustrate the breadth and depth of possible uses for public relations. When publics are treated as ends rather than as means, remarkably exciting things happen in organizations. The implications and applications to the relational management perspective are limited only by the imagination of public relations practitioners, researchers, educators, and theorists.

References

Anderson, R. and Ross, V. (1994). Questions of Communication: A Practical Introduction to Theory. New York: St. Martin's Press.

Arnett, R. C. (1981). "Toward a Phenomenological Dialogue." Western Journal of Speech Communication 45, 201-212.

Barnlund, Dean C. (1970). "A Transactional Model of Communication." In Foundations of Communication Theory, edited by K.K. Sereno and C. D. Mortensen. New York: Harper and Row.

Berger, Charles R. (1982). Language and Social Knowledge: Uncertainty in Interpersonal Relations. London: Arnold.

Berko, Roy M, Rosenfeld, Lawrence B., and Samovar, Larry A. (1997). Connecting, 2nd ed. New York: Harcourt Brace College Publishers.

Berlo, David K. (1960). The Process of Communication: An Introduction to Theory and Practice. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Botan, C. (1997). "Ethics in Strategic Communication Campaigns: The Case for a New Approach to Public Relations." The Journal of Business Communication, 34 (2): 188-202.

Botan, C (1993). "Introduction to the Paradigm Struggle in Public Relations." Public Relations Review 19 (2) : 197-110.

Brehm, S. (1992) Intimate Relations, 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Brown, James I. (1987). "Listening--Ubiquitous Yet Obscure." Journal of the International Listening Association, 1: 3-14.

Buber, M. (1967). "Between Man and Man: The Realms." In The Human Dialogue, edited by Floyd W. Matson and Ashley Montague. New York: The Free Press.

Buber, M. (1958). I and Thou (R.G. Smith, Trans.). New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Buber, M. (1966a). "Acceptance and Otherness." In The Way of Response: Martin Buber, edited by N.N. Glatzer. New York: Schocken Books.

Buber, M. (1966b). "In This Hour." In The Way of Response: Martin Buber, edited by N.N. Glatzer. New York: Schocken Books.

Buber, M. (1966c). "Without Reserve." In The Way of Response: Martin Buber, edited by N.N. Glatzer. New York: Schocken Books.

Buber, Martin (1965). Between Man and Man (R. G. Smith, Trans.). New York: Macmillan.

Cook, Karen S. (ed.). (1987). Social Exchange Theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Cutlip, Scott M., Center, Allen H., Broom, Glen M. (1994). Effective Public Relations, 7th ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Drewery, J. (1969). "An Interpersonal Perception Technique." British Journal of Medical Psychology 42: 171-181.

Duck, Steven (1976). "Interpersonal "Communication in Developing Acquaintance." In Explorations in Interpersonal Communication, edited by Gerald R. Miller. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Duck, Steven (1988). Relating to Others. Chicago, IL: The Dorsey Press.

Ferguson, M.A. (1984). "Building Theory in Public Relations: Interorganizational Relationships." Paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Gainesville, FL.

Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.

Flectcher, G.J., Fincham, F.D., Cramer, L., and Heron, N. (1987). "The Role of Attributions in the Development of Dating Relationships." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51: 875-884.

Friedman, Maurice S. (1956). Martin Buber: The Life of Dialogue. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press).

Grunig, James E. (1993). "Image and Substance: From Symbolic to Behavioral Relationship." Public Relations Review 19 (2): 221-139.

Grunig, James E. and Hunt, T. (1984). Managing Public Relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Grunig, James E. (1989). "Symmetrical Presuppositions as a Framework for Public Relations Theory." In Public Relations Theory, edited by C. H. Botan & V. Hazleton, Jr.. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hallen, Lars, Johanson, Jan, Seyed-Mohamed, Nazeem. (1991). "Interfirm Adaptation in Business Relationships." Journal of Marketing 55 (2): 29-37.

Heath, Robert L. (1993). "A Rhetorical Approach to Zones of Meaning and Organizational Prerogatives." Public Relations Review 19 (2): 141-155.

Hecht, M. L., Marston, P.J., and Larkey, L.K. (1994). "Love Ways and Relationship Quality in Heterosexual Relationships." Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 11: 25-44.

Homans, G. C. (1961). Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Howe, Reuel L. (1967). "The Miracle of Dialogue." In The Human Dialogue, edited by Floyd W. Matson and Ashley Montagu. New York: The Free Press.

Ichheiser, Gustav (1970). Appearances and Realities: Misunderstanding in Human Relations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Jaspers, Karl (1964). "Communication," in The Worlds of Existentialism, edited by Maurice S. Friedman. New York: Random House.

Johannesen, Richard L. (1971). "The Emerging Concept of Communciation as Dialogue." Quarterly Journal of Speech LVII: 373-82.

Johannesen, Richard L. (1996). Ethics in Human Communication, 4th ed. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Kelley, Harold H. (1979). Personal Relationships: Their Structures and Processes . Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kerckhoff, A. C., and Davis, K.E. (1962). "Value Consensus and Need Complementarity in Mate Selection." American Sociological Review 27: 295-303.

Knapp, M. L. (1984). Interpersonal Communication and Human Relationships. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Knapp, M. L. (1978). Social Intercourse: From Greeting to Goodbye. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Knapp, M.L. and Miller, G. R. , eds., (1985). Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Knapp, M. L., and Vangelisti, A. (1992). Interpersonal Communication and Human Relationships. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Laing, R. D. (1969). Self and Others. London: Tavistock.

Laing, R. D., Phillipson, H., and Lee, A.R. (1966). Interpersonal Perception. Baltimore: Perennial Library.

Ledingham, John A., Bruning, Stephen, and Thomlison, T. Dean (1996). "The Applicability of Interpersonal Relationship Dimensions to an Organizational Context: Toward a Theory of Relational Loyalty, A Qualitative Approach." Paper presented at The Allied Academies International Conference.

Ledingham, John A., Bruning, Stephen, Thomlison, T. Dean, and Lesko, Cheryl (1997). Academy of Managerial Communications Journal 1 (1): 23-43.

Liska, Jo and Cronkhite, Gary (1995). An Ecological Perspective on Human Communication Theory. New York: Harcourt Brace.

Littlejohn, Stephen W. (1996). Theories of Human Communication, 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishers.

Matson, Floyd W. and Montagu, A. (1967). "Introduction: The Unfinished Revolution." In The Human Dialogue, edited by Floyd W. Matson and Ashley Montagu. New York: The Free Press.

Meerloo, Jost A. M. (1967). "Conversation and Communication." In The Human Dialogue, edited by Floyd W. Matson and Ashley Montagu. New York: The Free Press.

Montgomery, Barbara M. (1992). "Communication as the Interface Between Couples and Culture." In Communication Yearbook 15, edited by Stanley Deetz. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Newcomb, Theodore M. (1953). "An approach to the Study of Communicative Acts." Psychological Review, 60: 393-404.

Pearson, R. L. (1989). "Business Ethics as Communication Ethics: Public Relations Practice and the Idea of Dialogue." In Public Relations Theory, edited by C. Botan and V. Hazleton. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Rogers, Carl R. (1961). On Becoming a Person: A Therapist's view of Psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Rogers, Carl R. (1980). A Way of Being. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Roloff, M.E. (1981). Interpersonal Communication: A Social Exchange Approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.

Ruben, B. D. and Lievrouw, L. A. (eds.). (1990). Mediation, Information, and Behavior. Transaction Publishers.

Ruesch, J. (1971). "Communication and Human Relations: An Interdisciplinary Approach." In Basic Readings in Interpersonal Communication, edited by Kim Giffin and Bobby R. Patton. New York: Harper & Row.

Stewart, J. (1978). "Foundations of Dialogic Communication." QuarterlyJournal of Speech, 64: 183-201.

Sunnafrank, M. (1986). "Predicted Outcome Value During Initial Interactions: A Reformulation of Uncertainty Reduction Theory." Human Communication Research 13: 3-33.

Taylor, Dalmas A. and Altman, Irwin (1973). Social Penetration: The Development of Interpersonal Relationships. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Thibaut, J. W., and Kelley, H.H. (1959). The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Thomlison, T. Dean (1972). Communication as Dialogue: An Alternative. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University.

Thomlison, T. Dean (1990). "Public Relations and Listening." Paper presented at the annual conference of the Central States Communication Association in Detroit, MI.

Thomlison, T. Dean (1985). "Relational Listening: Theoretical and Practical Considerations." Resources in Education, ERIC Clearinghouse for Reading and Communication Skills (ED 257 165).

Thomlison, T. Dean (1974). "The Existential Foundations of Dialogic Communication." Journal of the Illinois Speech and Theatre Association, 28 (1): 1-5.

Thomlison, T. Dean (1975). "The Necessary and Sufficient Characteristics of Dialogic Communication: The Dialogic Process Equation." Journal of the Illinois Speech and Theatre Association 29 (1): 34-42.

Thomlison, T. Dean (1982). Toward Interpersonal Dialogue. New York: Longman.

Thomlison, T. Dean and Ledingham, John A. (1989). "The Challenge of Communication Curriculum Integration." Resources in Education, ERIC Clearinghouse for Reading and Communication Skills (ED 332 236).

Wilcox, Dennis L. (1989). Public Relations: Strategies and Tactics, 2nd ed. New York, N.Y.: Harper & Row.

Wilmot, William W. (1987). Dyadic Communication, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Random House.

Wilmot, William W. (1995). Relational Communication. St. Louis: McGraw-Hill Publishers.

Wood, Julia T. (1996). Everyday Encounters. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishers.

Wood, Julia T. (1995). Relational Communication. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishers.

Wylie, Frank W. (1990). "The Challenge of Public Relations Education." Syracuse Scholar, 10 (1): 57-66.