What Cultural Values Influence American Public Relations Practitioners?
Gabriel Vasquez is an assistant professor in the School of Communication, University of Houston, TX. Maureen Taylor is an assistant professor in the School of Communication, Information, and Library Studies at Rutgers University, NJ.
Until recently, many believed that the United States had the most advanced knowledge of the practice of public relations.  However, numerous researchers, including Culbertson and Chen, have shown that countries throughout the world have made major advances in public relations research and practice.  We now have in-depth information about public relations practices in Asia through descriptive studies of China,  Japan,  India,  the Philippines,  Singapore and Malaysia,  and Taiwan.  Similarly, recent studies have focused on public relations practices in such European nations as Austria and Norway,  Germany,  Greece,  Hungary,  Solvenia,  and the post-Communist world.  Finally, studies about public relations in the Middle East  and Africa  have shown that there are many opportunities and challenges for the development of public relations theory.
One such opportunity has been the emergence of culture as a key variable in public relations research and practice. Some researchers have selected this opportunity to develop a schema for describing and categorizing differences in public relations practice between cultures and nations  whereas other scholars have attempted to conceptualize culture as a variable in public relations.  These efforts have been useful, but more research is needed to better understand the link between culture and public relations theory and practice.
Perhaps the best place to start to understand the role of culture is by looking in the mirror. Is there an American cultural approach to public relations? Botan suggested that public relations researchers should use the study of international of public relations as a "lens" to improve American theories and practices.  The current paper follows Botan's reflective stance and asks what values influence the American approach to public relations? The purpose of this article is to provide a snapshot of American public relations practice and to examine what cultural values influence American practices. Two theoretical research traditions will inform this examination. Hofstede developed four dimensions of culture that he believed were prevalent across all cultures and affect the functioning of any organization in a particular culture.  Grunig and Hunt developed four models of public relations practice based on the direction and purpose of communication behavior.  Grunig later created the craft and excell ence perspectives to describe how "public relations should be managed for it to be effective in meeting public relations objectives" (p. 3).  By using Hofstede's dimensions of culture, combined with Grunig's models of public relations, we undertook a cultural investigation of American practices.
An examination of American cultural approaches to public relations begins with a synthesis of research on culture as a variable in public relations research and practice. To understand this relationship, the next section of this article reports the results of an instrument that combined Hofstede's cultural variables and Grunig's models of public relations to examine dimensions of American cultural practices in public relations. The article concludes with a discussion of the implications that culture has for theory and education in American public relations.
Culture in Public Relations Theory and Practice
Although the concept of culture has been investigated in many disciplines, only recently have researchers and practitioners recognized the significance of culture as a variable that affects public relations.  Research into the role and influence of culture reflects a growing concern for ethnocentrism. Ethnocentric theory assumes that "a single theory is appropriate for all societies, although the theory developed reflects the cultural assumptions of the society from which it originated."  Ethnocentrism in public relations is a belief that what is known about public relations in one country is applicable across all countries.  Although it is true that many other nations imitate public relations techniques from the United States, this imitation begs the question of whether or not American theories, models, practices, and assumptions are comprehensive and appropriate to explain global public relations practice.
Botan captured the inherent paradox of the struggle to understand culture as a variable in public relations when he commented that the very practices that enable Western scholars and practitioners to understand public relations in Japan and Western Europe may actually blind us from seeing other enlightening practices.  Indeed, in other parts of the world, public relations is part of nation-building activities.  The use of public relations for nation-building may have been missed because of an ethnocentric model. Once we accept that culture will affect how scholars and practitioners view public relations, then we can begin to identify ways to make public relations more sensitive to publics and organizations.
Culture is linked both internally and externally to the practice of public relations. Corporate culture, as an internal organizational variable, has both a direct and indirect effect on the public relations practice of an organization. Dominant power holders in an organization, the CEO and key managers, identify key constituencies in the environment and target these constituencies for communication.  If public relations practitioners are members of the dominant coalition, then practitioners have a direct effect on 1) the assumptions of public relations; 2) the identification of key constituencies to the organization; and 3) the type of communication and models of public relations practiced by the organization. If public relations practitioners are not part of the dominant coalition, then organizational leaders who are not trained in public relations may make unethical decisions in communication and jeopardize relationships with publics. Thus, either directly or indirectly, public relations practice is in fluenced and constrained by larger social forces.  These larger social forces include economic, political, development structures and societal culture.
Societal culture is composed of the assumptions of communication that are brought into the organization through the experiences and attitudes of employees, and it plays an important part in the public relations communication of an organization. The field of public relations needs to learn more about the link between societal culture and public relations communication by organizations. Geert Hofstede examined both societal and organizational culture and has reported on the work-related attitudes and values of a multinational corporation "HERMES" (identity masked) in over 40 countries. 
Hofstede defined culture as "the collective programming of the mind which distinguishes the members of one human group from another. Culture in this sense, includes systems of values; and values are among the building blocks of culture."  For Hofstede, then, cultural values are mental programs that are "partly unique, partly shared,"  "take both the person and the situation into account,"  and lead to "the same person showing more or less the same behavior in similar situations."  Through mental programs, culture is to human groups what personality is to individuals.
Hofstede identified three levels of cultural values: universal, collective, and individual.  Universal level values are the most basic and shared of human mental programs and include expressive behaviors such as laughing and weeping. Collective level values are shared by some, but not all, people; "they are common to people belonging to a certain group or category."  Individual level values are the most unique and account for a diversity of behaviors within the same collective culture.
Hofstede's study identified four principal dimensions of culture: power distance, uncertainty avoidance (UA), masculinity-femininity, and individualism-collectivism. These cultural dimensions influence individuals' communication and, therefore, will affect the functioning of any organization.  Hofstede's variables, when combined with Grunig's four models of public relations, can bring a much-needed cultural perspective to public relations theory and practice.
To date, a handful of researchers has attempted to qualitatively apply Hofstede's cultural variables to examine public relations practices in other countries and to determine whether Grunig and Hunt's models are applicable across nations.  But, there have been no studies in public relations that have attempted to apply Hofstede's dimensions quantitatively. A quantitative instrument is necessary to 1) recognize the role and influence of culture in public relations research and practice; 2) examine the behaviors and work-related attitudes of practitioners in association with each of Grunig and Hunt's models; 3) identify the nature of the relationships between and among these dimensions, and finally; 4) articulate a cultural approach to public relations research that can eventually describe public relations practices across nations.
This study examined the relationship between Hofstede's cultural variables and the models of public relations for American practitioners. The data presented here offer a snapshot of practitioner assumptions about communication models, organizational relationships, and participation in decision making. No attempts will be made to generalize beyond this study. Rather, the research interest is in the strength of the relationship between the cultural variables and each model of public relations practice, not in generalizability. The first research question explores the compatibility of Hofstede's dimensions of culture with Grunig's models of public relations.
RQ1. Are the power distance, UA, masculinity-femininity, and individualism-collectivism cultural dimensions associated with any of the four models of public relations?
Relationships between the models of public relations and the dimensions of culture will describe underlying assumptions behind different professional practices. Based on the literature, American public relations practitioners still over-whelmingly practice the one-way model of public relations. By looking for associations of Grunig's models with Hofstede's dimensions of culture, we may begin to understand why practitioners continue to use one-way models when public relations research shows that two-way communication can be more effective.
According to J. Grunig, the two-way, symmetrical model is the most effective and ethical model of public relations.  Thus, the four models can be understood as falling along a continuum from a "craft" mindset--press agentry, public information, and two-way asymmetrical--on one end and the "excellent" worldview of public relations practice that embodies the assumptions of symmetrical communication on the other end. For this study, the craft worldview reflects a technical orientation toward public relations whereby organizations attempt to change the attitudes and actions of publics without changing their own attitudes and actions. The excellent worldview reflects more of the counseling function of public relations whereby practitioners use communication to change both the organization's and the public's attitudes and behaviors. Worldviews are an important guide for public relations practice. Grunig, Grunig, Sriramesh, Huang, and Lyra reported a meta-analysis of studies of public relations' worldviews in I ndia, Taiwan, and Greece and concluded much more evidence is needed to understand the internationalization of the craft and excellent worldviews.  Thus, the second research question seeks to better understand the strength of the relationship between the cultural variables and the craft and excellent worldviews.
RQ2. Are the power distance, UA, masculinity-femininity, and individualism-collectivism cultural dimensions associated with the craft or excellent worldview of public relations practice?
Given what we know about the prevalence of the one-way models in American practices, we expect that some of Hofstede's dimensions to be exclusively associated with the craft worldview and some dimensions to be exclusively related to the excellent worldview.
The Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) Chapter of an urban, Midwestern city was requested to participate in this study. The chapter membership represented various organizations including, but not limited to, for-profit businesses, nonprofit organizations, private consulting agencies, academic institutions, and governmental departments. Upon formal agreement with the chapter board, researchers received permission to survey members. Subjects of the investigation included 134 active public relations practitioners.
Researchers requested and received a copy of the instrument used in the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) study to determine the models of public relations practice. Sixteen questions, four questions for each model, identify four models of public relations practice. These questions were reformulated to reflect organizational specific activities or practices. For example, the press agentry question, "The sole purpose of public relations is to get publicity for the organization" was reformulated as "In my organization, the sole purpose of public relations is to get publicity for the organization." The goal of this reformulation was to examine the actual public relations assumptions of American practitioners.
For this survey instrument, Hofstede's actual questions were reformulated to inquire about public relations practices and experiences. Hofstede's questions used in the HERMES study are published in Culture's Consequences.  Each dimension and its related questions will be discussed below.
Power distance points to the basic differences of inequality across cultures.  "Power distance is a measure of the interpersonal power or influence between B [boss] and S [subordinate] as perceived by the least powerful of the two."  The power distance dimension consisted of four statements: 1) in this organization, subordinates are afraid to express disagreement with their supervisor; 2) my supervisor usually makes decisions on his/her own and then expects the decisions to be carried out loyally without raising difficulties; 3) my supervisor usually makes decisions on his/her own but, before going ahead, explains the reasons for the decisions and answers any questions; and 4) I prefer to work for any type of supervisor, except for one who asks me for advice and then announces his/her decision and expects me to loyally implement the decision whether or not the decision was in accordance with the advice I gave. The Power Distance Index (PDI) examines communication attitudes and roles as perceived by th e subordinate in organizational relationships. This dimension will provide information about the management conditions under which practitioners conduct their public relations activities. For instance, high power distance points to a work environment that may inhibit open communication between subordinates and superiors. In a high power distance culture, public relations practitioners may not be able to participate in organizational decision making. Low power distance, however, may point to a work environment that fosters dialogue and negotiation between people in different positions of authority. In a low power distance culture, public relations practitioners may have influence, or at the very least, access, to the dominant coalition. This access will have a direct consequence on public relations practitioners being able to shape organizational relationships with publics.
UA refers to the ability of humans to cope with ambiguity and risk.  Organizational rules and work-related stress are important parts of this index. The UA dimension for this survey was composed of four statements: 1) it is very important to follow organizational rules, even if I think it is in the organization's best interest if I break the rules; 2) it is important for me to work in a well defined job situation where the responsibilities and requirements are clear; 3) it is important for me to have long-term security of employment; and 4) it is important for me to have very little tension and stress on the job. UA influences the amount of communication within an organization (between subordinate and superior). Scores on this index will tell us about the reasons why practitioners do certain activities. For instance, high scores point to a culture that creates strict rules and regulations, whereas a low UA score describes a culture where there is room for negotiation. For public relations practitioners, h igh levels of UA will not only affect internal communication, but it will also influence the flexibility of communication with external publics. In high UA organizations, public relations practitioners may not be able to act or communicate with prior organizational approval. This inability to quickly respond to public needs may inhibit relationship building. Alternatively, in low UA cultures, fewer rules and constraints may give practitioners more control over their communication and negotiating relationships with publics.
The masculinity index measures the "duality of the sexes."  According to Hofstede, masculinity "is significantly negatively correlated with the percentage of women in professional and technical jobs, at least in the wealthier countries, and positively [correlated] with the segregation of the sexes in higher education."  Given the high ratio of females to males in the American practice of public relations and the high ratio of males to females in management, we posited that separate dimensions would result in greater insight and examination of the models. The masculinity dimension for this survey contained three statements: 1) I have an opportunity for high earnings; 2) I have an opportunity for advancements to higher level jobs; and 3) I work in a modern, up-to-date company. Scores on this index show how much members of a culture value the more material aspects of work, including promotion, opportunity, and success. High masculinity cultures will have practitioners working toward goals such as salary and promotion. Especially relevant for a study about public relations, according to Hofstede,  high masculinity cultures rarely have women and men performing the same jobs.
For Hofstede, masculinity and femininity are not related to gender, but instead describe how cultures socialize members into certain communication and behavior patterns through families, schools, the media, and peer groups. It is important to remember that these questions and dimensions are not separating men from women, but rather examining masculine and feminine traits in communication and organizational behavior within an entire culture. Thus, to tap into these traits, a femininity dimension was created.
The femininity dimension encompassed three statements: 1) I have a good working relationship with my direct supervisor; 2) I have good physical working conditions; and 3) I have a friendly atmosphere in my organization. Scores on this index show how much members of a culture value the qualitative aspects of work, including environment and good working relationships. High femininity cultures allow both males and females to work in the same types of jobs.
Individualism "describes the relationship between the individual and the collectivity which prevails in a given society."  The individualism dimension for this survey contained five statements: 1) I have sufficient time left for my personal or family time; 2) I have considerable freedom to adopt my own approach to the job; 3) I have challenging tasks to do from which I can get a personal sense of accomplishment; 4) I fully use my skills and abilities on the job; and 5) I have training opportunities to improve or learn new skills. Highly individualist societies will place the needs, values, and goals of the individual over the needs, values, and goals of the collective.  Scores on this index show how much a particular culture values individual accomplishment.
A collectivism dimension was reformulated from Hofstede's individualism continuum. In this instrument, the collectivism dimension constituted five statements: 1) I work with people who cooperate well with one another; 2) I make a real contribution to the success of my organization; 3) I serve my country; 4) I have an opportunity for helping other people; and 5) I work in a small, but desirable, company. In a highly collective culture, individuals place the needs of the organization above the needs of the individual. Scores on this index show how much a culture values the well-being of the collective over the needs of the individual.
The final survey instrument reflected the aforementioned cultural variables, questions that identified the models of public relations, and demographic questions. Questions related to public relations models were formatted by using a nine-point Likert scale, from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Questions related to cultural variables were formatted on a nine-point Likert scale, ranging from not very important to very important. Demographic questions were included to obtain descriptive profiles of respondents.
Conducting the Research
The survey was administered via mail survey techniques to active members of a Midwestern PRSA chapter. Members of the target population received a cover letter that informed them of board endorsement and approval, encouraged their participation, and set a return deadline. Received surveys were tracked and totaled, and a second mailing was sent out 1 week after the deadline. Surveys were sent to all 134 members, with a total response rate of 78%. Surveys were then screened for usability, which resulted in the elimination of several surveys. The data are based on N = 94.
Data were analyzed by using SPSS on an IBM VMCMS mainframe. Before analysis, data were examined through various SPSS programs for accuracy of data entry, missing values, and fit between distributions. These results identified no outliers or missing cases.
The first research question looked at the strength of the relationship between the power distance, UA, masculinity, femininity, individualism, and collectivism cultural dimensions and the four models of public relations. Because the purpose of this research was to understand the affects of culture on public relations practices, each model will be discussed below. Pearson correlations, found in Table 1, show the strength of these relationships.
Two cultural dimensions correlated with the press agentry model of public relations: power distance and masculinity. Power distance correlated with the press agentry model, r = .3376 (p [less than] .001). The United States, according to the Hofstede study, falls on the lower end of the PDI. In Hofstede's study, the mean of the 40 nations was 51, whereas the United States scored a mean of only 40. Respondents for this survey instrument scored on the low end of PDI, with a mean of 4.2788. Masculinity also correlated, r = .2533 (p [less than] .014), with the press agentry model. The United States fell on the high end of the masculinity index, with a mean score of 62, whereas the over-all mean for all nations was 51. As expected from Hofstede's research, American respondents in this survey scored on the high end of the masculinity index, with a mean of 7.4231.
Three of Hofstede's cultural dimensions correlated significantly with the public information model of public relations: UA, power distance, and collectivism. UA had a correlation of r = .2811 (P[less than].006). The United States scored on the low end of the dimension in Hofstede's study.  Power distance also correlated significantly with the public information model of public relations, r .2198 (P[less than].033). As previously indicated in the press agentry model, respondents in the current study supported Hofstede's findings. Lastly, collectivism had a negative correlation with the public information model, r = - .2756 (P[less than].007).
The collectivist and individualist dimensions of culture both correlated significantly with the two-way asymmetrical model of public relations: collectivism with a correlation of r = .2823 (P[less than].006) and a survey mean of 6.6769; and individualism with a correlation of r .2188 (P[less than].035) and a mean of 7.9615, which supported Hofstede's finding that the United States is the highest scoring nation on the individualism continuum.
Three cultural dimensions correlated with this particular model: collectivism (r = .3228, P[less than].002), individualism (r = .2283, P[less than].027), and femininity (r .2524, P[less than].014).
Worldviews of Public Relations
The second research question inquired about the relationship between the dimensions of culture and the two worldviews of public relations. The craft worldview was significantly, positively correlated with power distance (r = 3106, P[less than].002) and significantly, negatively correlated with collectivism (r = -.2345, p[less than].023). The excellent worldview indicated significant correlations with three cultural dimensions: collectivism (r = .3272, p[less than].001), individualism (r = .2406, p[less than].019), and femininity (r = .2171, P[less than].023).
There was some relationship between the models, worldviews, and the dimensions of culture. The next section explores what these findings tell us about an American cultural approach to public relations.
Culture is a key variable in the practice of public relations, and the results of this study support the qualitative analysis of the link between culture and the models of public relations reported by Grunig, Grunig, Sriramesh, Huang, and Lyra.  Moreover, the strong correlations between the models, the worldviews of public relations, and Hofstede's cultural dimensions show that there are links between the American practice of public relations and societal culture. The findings presented here suggest that this survey instrument, although tested on an American population, may ultimately offer insight into other cultural or national approaches to public relations.
Two broad findings that provide questions for future research emerged from this study. First, there appears to be a strong relationship between power distance and the one-way models of public relations. Second, there appears to be a strong relationship between collectivism and femininity with the two-way models. Each of these findings has important implications for the American practice of public relations, and these implications are discussed below.
Power Distance and One-Way Communication
The researchers expected that particular dimensions of culture would be exclusively associated with certain models. Power distance correlated with both of the one-way models of public relations--press agentry, public information--and then correlated again with the craft worldview. The PDI inquired about practitioner perceptions about work relationships and authority. The findings show that the American practitioners prefer managers who are flexible, are not afraid of disagreeing with their bosses, and desire and respect supervisors who consult with them before making decisions. That is, they would like to work in an environment that allows them to contribute to organizational decision making.
The PDI score for this sample matches Hofstede's findings that the United States is a low power distance country. The data suggest that American practitioners in this study were not working under heavily controlled or authoritative management. Thus, the strong correlation of power distance with the press agentry, public information, and the craft worldview does raise some important questions about the communication models chosen by these practitioners. Do public relations professionals practice one-way communication because their organizations force them to? Given the findings of this study, the answer would have to be no.
The low power distance between practitioners and their managers suggests that respondents do not practice one-way communication because they are directed to do so by an authoritarian boss. Instead, their decision to practice one-way communication may be attributed to other causes. First, they may choose to practice a one-way model because it is easier and requires less skill than the two-way models. Or, a second possibility is that these practitioners practice one-way models because they lack of knowledge of the alternatives. Either way, if public relations professionals practice one-way communication by choice or by lack of awareness of other approaches, then this is something that can be changed by creating awareness about the effectiveness of two-way communication.
Collectivism, Femininity, and Two-Way Communication
The second finding shows that the cultural dimensions of collectivism and femininity correlated with the two-way symmetrical model of public relations and the excellent worldview. Adding further support to the relationship between collectivism and symmetrical communication, the dimension of collectivism negatively correlated with the one-way model of public information model and the craft worldview.
Collectivism means that members in a society value cooperation, helping others, and contributing to the success of the organization. Successful organizations require that both individuals and organizational units contribute to organizational effectiveness and productivity. The practitioners in this study appear to be more collectivistic than individualist in their attitudes and behaviors. Although this finding may seem to contradict the United States' score in the HERMES study, Hofstede noted that occupation and sex differences in work goals will have a great deal of influence in the outcome of this cultural dimension.  Hence, a relatively high collectivism score may reflect the supportive role of public relations in American organizations.
Both male and female respondents in this study appear to value what may be perceived to be traditionally group-oriented goals. This finding is supported in recent research that suggests that both male and female practitioners "appear willing to respect the other, and perhaps more importantly, engage in dialogue on the issues in ways that will result in collaboration and benefits for both."  Indeed, this tacit cooperation may be showing up in the other dimension of culture that correlated with two-way communication, femininity.
Although Hofstede reported that the United States scored high on the masculinity index, Sriramesh and White argued that Western societies are slowly moving away from the dichotomous notion of masculinity and femininity.  All respondents, males and females, scored high on the femininity dimension. Both male and female respondents in this survey claimed to value cooperation, good relationships with co-workers, and the full use of their skills in a job. Because public relations practitioners perform important support roles within organizations, this organizational value of dialogue, cooperation, and mutual benefit may all contribute to the presence of two-way communication for both male and female practitioners.
The relationship between low power distance and the one-way models raises questions about the reasons why these American practitioners continue to use one-way communication in their work. Is it culture or choice?
Sriramesh  found that public relations practitioners in India "followed the directions of senior managers" and "executed their communication policies" in one-way communication because of high power distance.  Given the hierarchical nature of Indian society, Sriramesh's finding seems consistent with the literature on power distance. However, the low power distance scores of the current American sample and the high correlations between low power distance and the practice of the craft worldview forces us to ask why is a one-way model chosen by American practitioners who claim low power distance in their organizational relationships?
Sriramesh, Grunig, and Dozier have examined authoritarian and participatory cultures in organizations and found that that, although two-way communication "is most likely to be found in an organization with a participatory culture... it can also be found in an authoritarian culture.  Therefore, public relations professional development and education may also be a key to unlocking the paradox of low power distance and one-way communication. Grunig and Grunig found that practitioners "would like to practice the excellent model if they had the necessary knowledge to do so and the conditions in their organizations were favorable for its practice."  Preliminary findings show that the practitioners in the current study do not work under power distance conditions that dictate their communication practices. The reality may be that practitioners want to improve their communication and relationships with publics, but they may need more training or encouragement to accomplish this shift in worldviews. Thus, a re newed focus for advancement of public relations may rest in increased educational and professional development.
This finding suggests an imperative for those academics who teach public relations courses. Professors need to give students the theoretical and communication skills necessary for promoting ethical and effective public relations. Likewise, professional organizations, such as PRSA and the Public Relations Student Society of America, also need to focus on continued professional development for members so that they, too, can make informed choices about what models they follow in their practices.
A second observation offered here addresses the relationship between the cultural dimensions of collectivism, femininity, and two-way models of communication. Because of socialization, both masculine and feminine characteristics are present within every culture. Some tasks and roles associated with certain occupations are characterized as more masculine or feminine.  The roles research conducted by Broom and Smith  and Dozier  may clarify the relationships between occupation of public relations and cultural variability. Dozier noted that the public relations management role, which embodies an excellent worldview, requires supportive skills, such as facilitation, problem solving, and inclusive decision making.  The strong correlations between collectivism, femininity, and two-way communication in the current survey may point to the highly supportive nature of American public relations work. More research, however, is necessary to further understand how culture affects the practice of American public relations, and how it influences practitioner's entry into management positions.
This study has offered a snapshot of an American cultural approach to public relations practice. Results of the study, while encouraging, are limited by the nature of the sample. The PRSA chapter of a Midwestern city provided a convenient sample to administer the survey, and additional chapters across the nation and the world will no doubt help to refine this methodology. All in all, the extension of Hofstede's cultural variables to Grunig's models of public relations advances the concern and consideration for culture as a significant variable of public relations practice and research. Culture is an important factor for public relations. Practitioners and scholars alike must appreciate and be able to account for the presence of culture if they seek to fully understand American, and eventually, international public relations.
(1.) Melvin L. Sharpe, "The Impact of Social and Cultural Conditioning On Global Public Relations," Public Relations Review 18 (1992), pp. 103-107.
(2.) Hugh M. Culbertson and Ni Chen, International Public Relations: A Comparative Analysis (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996).
(3.) Ni Chen, "Public Relations in China: The Introduction and Development of an Occupational Field," in Hugh M. Culbertson and Ni Chen (eds.), International Public Relations: A Comparative Analysis (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996), pp. 121-154.
(4.) Anne Cooper-Chen and Mizuo Kaneshige, "Public Relations Practice in Japan: Beginning Again for the First Time," in Hugh M. Culbertson and Ni Chen (eds.), International Public Relations: A Comparative Analysis (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996), pp. 223-238.
(5.) K. Sriramesh, "Societal Culture and Public Relations: Ethnographic Evidence From India," Public Relations Review 18 (1992), pp. 201-211; K. Sriramesh, "Power Distance and Public Relations: An Ethnographic Study of Southern Indian Organizations," in Hugh M. Culbertson and Ni Chen (eds.), International Public Relations: A Comparative Analysis (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996), pp. 191-190.
(6.) Juan F. Jamais, Mariechel J. Navarro, and Ramon R. Tuazon, "Public Relations in the Philippines," in Hugh M. Culbertson and Ni Chen (eds.), International Public Relations: A Comparative Analysis (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996), pp. 191-206.
(7.) Yeap S. Beng, "The State of Public Relations in Singapore," Public Relations Review 20 (4) (1994), pp. 373-394; Maureen Taylor and Carl H. Botan, "Public Relations Campaigns for National Development in the Pacific Rim: The Case of Public Education in Malaysia," Australian Journal of Communication 24 (2) (1997), pp. 115-130; Maureen Taylor and Michael L. Kent, "Challenging Assumptions of International Public Relations: When Government is the Most Important Public," Public Relations Review 25 (1999), pp. 131-144; James K. VanLeuven, "Public Relations in South East Asia From Nation-Building Campaigns to Regional Interdependence," in Hugh M. Culbertson and Ni Chen (eds.), International Public Relations: A Comparative Analysis (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996), pp. 207-222.
(8.) James E. Grunig, Larissa A. Grunig, K. Sriramesh, Yi-Hui Huang, and Anastasia Lyra, "Models of Public Relations in an International Setting," Journal of Public Relations Research 7 (1995), pp. 163-186.
(9.) W. Timothy Coombs, Sherry Holladay, Gabriele Hasenauer, and Benno Signitzer, "A Comparative Analysis of International Public Relations: Identification of Similarities and Differences Between Professionalization in Austria. Norway, and the United States," Journal of Public Relations Research 6 (1994), pp. 23-39.
(10.) Gunter Bentele and Grazyna M. Peter, "Public Relations in the German Democratic Republic and the New Federal German States," in Hugh M. Culbertson and Ni Chen (eds.), International Public Relations: A Comparative Analysis (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996), pp. 349-366.
(11.) James E. Grunig, Larissa A. Grunig, K. Sriramesh, Yi-Hui Huang, and Anastasia Lyra, 1995, op. cit.
(12.) Ray E. Hiebert, "Global Public Relations in a Postcommunist World: A New Model," Public Relations Review 18 (1992), pp. 117-126.
(13.) Dejan Vercic, Larissa A. Grunig, and James E. Grunig, "Global and Specific Principles of Public Relations: Evidence From Slovenia," in H ugh M. Culbertson and Ni Chen (eds.), International Public Relations: A Comparative Analysis, (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996), pp. 31-66.
(14.) Ray E. Hiebert, 1992, op. cit.; Ray E. Hiebert, "Advertising and Public Relations in Transition From Communism: The Case of Hungary, 1989-1994," Public Relations Review 29 (1994), pp. 357-372.
(15.) Ali Alanazi, "Public Relations in the Middle East: The Case of Saudi Arabia," in Hugh M. Culbertson and Ni Chen (eds.), International Public Relations: A Comparative Analysis (Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996), pp. 239-256.
(16.) Cornelius Pratt, "The African Context," Public Relations Journal 41 (1985), pp. 11-16; Cornelius Pratt, "Professionalism in Nigerian Public Relations," Public Relations Review 10 (1985b), pp. 27-40; James K. VanLeuven and Cornelius B. Pratt, "Public Relations' Role: Realities in Asia and in Africa South of the Sahara," in Hugh M. Culbertson and Ni Chen (eds.), International Public Relations: A Comparative Analysis (Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates, 1996), pp. 93-106.
(17.) Carl H. Botan, "International Public Relations: Critique and Reformulation," Public Relations Review 18 (1992), pp. 149-159; W. Timothy Coombs, Sherry Holladay, Gabriele Hasenauer, and Benno Signitzer, 1994, op. cit.; T. Wheeler, "The Role of the European Community in Promoting the Professionalism and Harmonization of Public Relations Within the Member States," paper presented to the International Communication Association, Ireland, May 1990.
(18.) James A. Grunig, Larissa A. Grunig, K. Sriramesh, Yi-Hui Huang, and Anastasia Lyra, 1995, op. cit.; K. Sriramesh, James E. Grunig, and Jody Buffington, "Corporate Culture and Public Relations," in James E. Grunig, David NI. Dozier, William P. Ehling, Larissa A. Grunig, Fred C. Repper, and Jon White (eds.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992), pp. 557-596; K. Sriramesh and Jon White, "Societal Culture and Public Relations," in James E. Grunig, David M. Dozier, William P. Ehling, Larissa A. Grunig, Fred C. Repper, and Jon White (eds.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992), pp. 597-616.
(19.) Carl Botan, 1992, op. cit.
(20.) Geert Hofstede, "Culture's Consequence: International Differences in Work-Related Values," (Newbury Park, CA: Sage 1984); Geert Hofstede, Cultures and Organizations Software of the Mind (New York: McGraw Hill, 1991).
(21.) James E. Grunig and Todd Hunt, Managing Public Relations (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston 1984).
(22.) James E. Grunig, "Communication, Public Relations, and Effective Organizations: An Overview of the Book," in James E. Grunig, David M. Dozier, William P. Ehling, Larissa A. Grunig, Fred C. Repper, and Jon White (eds.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992), pp. 1-30.
(23.) Botan, 1992, op. cit.; Joe S. Epley, "Public Relations in the Global Village: An American Perspective," Public Relations Review 18 (1992), pp. 109-116; James E. Grunig, Larissa A. Grunig, K. Sriramesh, Yi-Hui Huang, and Anastasia Lyra, 1995, op. cit.; Melvin Sharpe, 1992, op. cit.; K. Sriramesh, James E. Grunig, and Jody Buffington, 1992, op. cit.; K. Sriramesh and Jon White, 1992, op. cit.
(24.) Dejan Vercic, Larissa A. Grunig, and James E. Grunig, 1996, op. cit., p. 33.
(25.) Carl H. Botan, 1992, op. cit.
(27.) Hamida Karim, "Development of Public Relations in Asia/Pacific: A Malaysian View," International Public Relations Review 12 (1989), pp. 17-24; Cornelius B. Pratt, 1985a, op. cit.; Cornelius B. Pratt, 1985b, op. cit.; Maureen Taylor and Carl Botan, 1997, op. cit.; James K. VanLeuven, 1996, op. cit.
(28.) James E. Grunig, 1992, op. cit. For a discussion of the implications of authoritarian and participatory dimensions of organizational culture see K. Sriramesh, James E. Grunig, and David M. Dozier, "Observation and Measurement of Two Dimensions of Organizational Culture and Their Relationships to Public Relations," Journal of Public Relations Research 8 (1996), pp. 229-261.
(29.) James K. VanLeuven and Cornelius B. Pratt, 1996, op. cit.
(30.) Geert Hofstede, 1984, 1991, op. cit.
(31.) Ibid., 1984, p.21.
(32.) Ibid., p. 15.
(33.) Ibid., p. 14.
(35.) Geert Hofstede, 1984, op. cit.
(36.) Ibid., p. 15.
(37.) William B. Gundykunst, "Cultural Variabilities in Communication: An Introduction," Communication Research 24 (1997), pp. 327-348.
(38.) James E. Grunig and Todd Hunt, op. cit.
(39.) James E. Grunig, 1992, op. cit.
(40.) James E. Grunig, Larissa A. Grunig, K. Sriramesh, Yi-Hui Huang, and Anastasia Lyra, op. cit.
(41.) Geert Hofstede, 1984, op. cit.
(43.) Ibid., pp. 70-71.
(44.) Geert Hofstede, 1984, op. cit.
(45.) Ibid., p. 176.
(46.) Ibid., p. 177.
(47.) Geert Hofstede, 1984, op. cit.
(48.) Ibid., p. 148.
(49.) William B, Gundykunst, op. cit.
(50.) Hofstede, 1984, op. cit.
(51.) James E. Grunig, Larissa A. Grunig, K. Sriramesh, Yi-Hui Huang, and Anastasia Lyra, op. cit.
(52.) Geert Hofstede, 1984, op. cit.
(53.) Shirley A. Serini, Elizabeth L. Toth, Donald K. Wright, and Arthur G. Emig, "Watch For Falling Glass... Women, Men, and Job Satisfaction in Public Relations: A Preliminary Analysis," Journal of Public Relations Research 9 (1997), PP. 99-118, p. 116.
(54.) K. Sriramesh and Jon White, op. cit.
(55.) K. Sriramesh, 1992, 1996, op. cit.
(56.) K. Sriramesh, 1996, op. cit., p. 187.
(57.) K. Sriramesh, James E. Grunig, and David M. Dozier, op. cit., p. 257
(58.) James E. Grunig and Larissa A. Grunig, "Models of Public Relations and Communication," in James E. Grunig, David M. Dozier, William P. Ehling, Larissa A. Grunig, Fred C. Repper, and Jon White (eds.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992), p. 307.
(59.) Geert Hofstede, 1984, op. cit.
(60.) Glen M. Broom and George D. Smith, "Testing Practitioner's Impact on Clients," Public Relations Review 5 (1979), pp. 47-59.
(61.) David M. Dozier, "The Organizational Roles of Communications and Public Relations Practitioners," in James E. Grunig, David M. Dozier, William P. Ehling, Larissa A. Grunig, Fred C. Repper, and Jon White (eds.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1992), pp. 327-355.
Correlations Between the Models of Public Relations Practice and Hofstede's Cultural Variables Public Two-Way Press Agentry Information Asymmetrical Power r = .3376 r = .2198 distance (p [less than] .001) (p [less than] .033) Uncertainty r = .2811 avoidance (p [less than] .006) Masculinity r = .2533 (p [less than] .014) Femininity Individualism r = .2811 (p [less than] .035) Collectivism r = .2756 r = -.2823 (p [less than] .007) (p [less than] .006) Two-Way Craft Excellent Symmetrical Worldview Worldview Power r = .3106 distance (p [less than] .002) Uncertainty avoidance Masculinity Femininity r = .2524 r = .2171 (p [less than] .014) (p [less than] .023) Individualism r = .2283 r = 2406 (p [less than] .027) (p [less than] .019) Collectivism r = .3228 r = -.2345 r = .3272 (p [less than] .002) (p [less than] .023) (p [less than] .001)
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Vasquez, Gabriel M.; Taylor, Maureen|
|Publication:||Public Relations Review|
|Date:||Dec 22, 1999|
|Previous Article:||Adding Fuel to the Fire: NASA's Crisis Communications Regarding Apollo 1.|
|Next Article:||Reporters and Bureaucrats: Public Relations Counter-Strategies by Public Administrators in an Era of Media Disinterest in Government.|