Invited Panel Presentation: The Public Relations Research Agenda--The Next Decade, Public

Relations Division, International Communication Association, Acapulco, Mexico - June 2, 2000

REDISCOVERING THE INDIVIDUAL: POTENTIAL APPLICATIONS

OF CONSUMER BEHAVIOR RESEARCH TO PUBLIC RELATIONS

Kirk Hallahan

Abstract: Public relations is an interdisciplinary field that draws upon a wide range of
other disciplines for theory and applicable research. This paper argues that valuable
insights about the behaviors of people important to organizations can be derived from an
examination of the growing consumer behavior literature. This paper identifies five
broad areas where consumer research might contribute to the public relations research
agenda during the next decade. These areas include: message processing, decision-
making, the influence of affect, organizational-consumer relationships, and consumer
action behaviors.

As the theme of this session suggests, public relations theory and research is at a
crossroads. As we begin a new decade, the public relations research agenda is fragmented. This
fracturing largely results from the relatively few researchers in the field, and from the lack of a
single theoretical paradigm (Botan, 1993; Toth & Heath, 1992).

Public relations today struggles to define whether it is a discipline primarily grounded in

management or communication. Management theorists, for example, focus on issues of systems
maintenance and balance, strategies for accommodating publics in organizational actions, and
organizational and personal factors that influence practitioner performance (e.g. organization
structure, culture, practitioner values, gender, etc.) Communications theorists, by contrast, are
more interested in the construction and delivery of messages and in concrete strategies for the
development of effective programs.

The relationship of organizations to people is presumably the focus of public relations.

Yet, ironically, people are seemingly overlooked as the focus of much of our theorizing and
research. We identify the individuals to whom programs are directed in organization-based
terms. Sakeholders are people potentially impacted by the actions of organizations, whether or
not these stakeholders know or care about such consequences. Publics are groups who organize
around issues or who engage in discussions and concerted action to address problems, which
presumably are caused by or can be solved by organizations. But few, if any, of the audience
members to whom we direct programs actually think of themselves as “stakeholders” or members
of a “public.” At best, they identify themselves as a customer, an employee, an investor, a donor
or a constituent.

Our examination of audiences is compounded by a propensity to talk interchangeably

about groups and the individuals who constitute those groups--as if they were the same. A group,
such as a public, is a collectivity of people with a definable set of collective characteristics or
 Consumer Behavior Research and Public Relations - 1

properties--number of members, purpose, structure, leadership, patterns of interaction, etc.

Although groups tend to reflect the characteristics of the individuals who constitute them, we
erroneously attribute to groups characteristics that rightfully are properties of individuals--such as
knowledge, opinions, attitudes, or patterns of everyday behavior.

Indeed, many of the people to whom we direct public relations programs do not act in
concert. Rather, the majority are more akin to what Blumer (1946/1966) defined as a “mass” --
people with only a loose sense of common identity, who largely act independently, and who make
decisions largely out of self-interest. Elsewhere, I have argued that we need to pay more attention
to these groups, which I have labeled inactive publics (Hallahan, in press).

CONSUMER BEHAVIOR RESEARCH AND

ITS POTENTIAL CONTRIBUTION TO PUBLIC RELATIONS

In the coming decade, I believe public relations scholars must gain a deeper
understanding of the behaviors of individuals. Indeed, collective individual actions of people
make them just as strategically important as organized groups and provide the basis for much of
what we do in public relations. In turn, an important part of our research agenda in the coming
decade must address how public relations influences the behavior of individuals.

This is not an entirely new idea. Yet, I'm mystified by the relative lack of attention that
we have paid to research focused on individuals.

Obviously, there are solid examples of individual-level research in the field. The most
prominent example, of course, is J. Grunig’s situation theory, which attempts to predict the
likelihood that individuals will become active on a given set of issues (J. Grunig, 1997; J. Grunig
& Hunt, 1984). Other examples include the current stream of research to measure relationships
(Broom, Casey & Ritchey, 1997; Hon & Grunig, 1999; Ledingham & Bruning, 2000). Similarly,
Heath’s work in the area of risk communication has provided valuable insights about how people
deal with environmental concerns and uncertainty (Heath, 1990, 1991). Yet, our inventory of
other research focused on the individual level of analysis is remarkably sparse.

One potential way for public relations researchers to jump-start research about individual
audience members is to tap into the growing consumer behavior literature. Consumer behavior
researchers have focused on understanding individual behavior since that field emerged as a
distinct field in the mid1960s. The focus of consumer behavior has been to apply social scientific
and humanistic investigation to understanding people's everyday behaviors.

To some, consumer behavior is synonymous with marketing. Robertson and Kassarjian

(1991), for example, define consumer behavior as “the scientific study of consumer actions in the
marketplace” (p. vii). However, others view consumer behavior as independent of marketing or
any particular discipline. Jacoby (1976), for example, defined consumer behavior as “the
acquisition, consumption and disposition of goods, services, time and ideas by decision-making
units ....” (p. 1). Arndt (1976) suggested that consumer behavior encompasses the “the problems
encountered by members of society in the acquisition and realization of their standard of living”
(p. 213). More recently, Holbrook (1995) defined consumer research as “the study of
consummation in all of its aspects.” Holbrook explained, “Consummations of one sort or
another are what all humans and therefore all consumers seek. Consummation--attaining
customer value or achieving satisfaction--thereby designates the central core of the concept of
consumer research” (Holbrook, 1995, p. 88).
 Consumer Behavior Research and Public Relations - 2

As a field, consumer behavior represents the intellectual meeting ground for investigators
from economics, marketing, applied psychology, sociology, anthropology, philosophy, family
sciences, and related disciplines. For public relations researchers and practitioners, consumer
behavior is particularly relevant because of its study of practical, real-world activities. The
Association for Consumer Research (founded in 1970) and the interdisciplinary Journal of
Consumer Research (established in 1974) are two of the primary forums where consumer
behavior researchers come together. Ironically, public relations researchers are conspicuous by
their absence.

Some people might balk at the idea of equating individuals who constitute publics with
consumers. Critics argue (correctly) that public relations deals with far more categories of
audiences than customers or consumers. These include: investors, donors, volunteers, workers,
suppliers and voters. Yet, thoughtful examination reveals just how similarly all of these
constituencies interact with organizations today. Virtually all organization-individual interactions
involve some form of exchange relationship and people exercising choices. Usually, people pay
some form of consideration (money, skill, time, or psychic commitment) in exchange for a
reward (a product, service, wages, a profitable return on their investments, recognition or some
other gratification).

Significantly, constituents of organizations have assumed a customer-like mentality.

Investors, donors, volunteers, employees and voters demand both value and situation and expect
to be courted by organizations as if they were customers. Organizations have responded
accordingly by routinely providing incentives to attract individuals -- product discounts for
investors, tickets to social or sporting events for donors, signing bonuses for employees. Indeed
social agencies and politicians promote causes and ideologies in the same marketers promote
soap. We live in a customer- and consumption-oriented society (Lewis & Bridger, 2000).

SOME POTENTIAL AREAS OF INQUIRY AND

CONTRIBUTIONS OF CONSUMER RESEARCH

My call for public relations scholars to devote more attention to understanding

individuals is grounded only in partly by what we see going on in modern organizations. Indeed,
traditional value systems are being shaken as through the transformation the spatial and temporal
that once defined relationships. However, my enthusiasm is also grounded in the fact that
consumer behavior researchers have spent the past 40 years addressing many ideas that are both
interesting and potentially useful for public relations. If consumer behavior research has entered
early adulthood, public relations is still a "babe in the woods."

In recent years, public relations scholars have been challenged by organizations such as
The Institute for Public Relations to look beyond their own little domain and to draw upon a
broader theoretical grounded in other disciplines. Toward that end, consumer behavior is an
untapped opportunity.

Consumer behavior obviously is a broad field that covers everything from economics to
the anthropological analyzes of the meaning of gift giving. It would be impossible to catalog all
the pertinent questions that can be found in the field. Instead, I'd simply like to outline five broad
areas that I think it is important for us to investigate in the next decade--and to suggest ways that
public relations might benefit from consumer behavior research to date. These areas are
 Consumer Behavior Research and Public Relations - 3

intentionally broad. But within each one I will point to some specific questions of special
interest.

Message Processing

To understand people, public relations researchers and practitioners must continue to

study the process of communication, more specifically, how people process information and
messages. Consumer behavior continues to generate the most robust research related to cognitive
message processing and persuasion. Indeed, several of the leading scholars conducting research
on influence processes test their ideas in a consumer behavior context and publish in the
consumer research journals. Examples include Richard T. Petty and John T. Cacioppo of Ohio
State, and Shelly Chaiken of New York University, who are considered the leading persuasion
theorists. Although persuasion is regarded with disdain by some in our field, we cannot ignore
developing a better understanding of influence processes.

Today applied cognitive processing research goes far beyond how to construct the most
persuasive message. Instead, the principal focus is on how individual audience characteristics
impact influence processes. As public relations professionals, we need to know more about these
factors, which broadly can be classified within the molar concepts of motivation, ability and
opportunity to process messages.

Normative public relations theory suggests that public relations ideally is practiced
through a process of accommodation that employs symmetrical, two-way communication
(Dozier, J. Grunig & L. Grunig, 1995; J. Grunig, 1992; J. Grunig & Hunt, 1984). Yet, as a
practical matter, this approach is best suited to dealing with comparatively small, identifiable
groups (and particularly, the leadership of those groups) and reflects a bias stemming from
reliance upon interpersonal communication concepts to define organization-public interaction.
For those who must conduct public relations activities in less than ideal circumstances, and who
must cope with mass audiences only minimally involved in any particular topic of interest to an
organization, we need to understand about how individuals process information and relate to
organizations.

Some of the specific areas of inquiry we should pursue include:

 Memory processes. In particular, we need to gain a better understanding of the

ability of people to recognize and recall and form opinions about organizations --
including their names, brands and key messages. As a field, public relations spends
billions of dollars to create identities for organizations and products, to rename and
reposition those organizations and products, and to enhance the reputation of
organizations and products. Yet, our knowledge of basic memory processes and
techniques to assess how organizations we are perceived is rudimentary, at best. It is
difficult to talk about establishing and maintaining mutually beneficial relationships
with people who have only a vague recognition of the organization.

 Spokesperson effects. In many situations today, people have little direct contact
with the management or principals of organizations. Instead, their knowledge of
organizations is gained from designated representatives. These agents range from
celebrity endorsers, who appear in ads and at special events, to sales personnel, to
community and media relations spokespersons. We need to know more of about
these representatives are perceived. A valuable starting point is to examine the
 Consumer Behavior Research and Public Relations - 4

extensive work on advertising spokespersons found in the consumer research

literature.

 Repetition effects. Another area that is particularly relevant deals with repetition
effects, i.e. the value and need for people with only minimal involvement in a topic to
hear messages more than once. Repetition also involves the value of hearing
messages from multiple sources. Advertisers have acknowledged the potentially
deleterious impact of competition and clutter in today's highly competitive
communication environment. By contrast, public relations scholars seem to assume
that reaching people is not a problem. But, in fact, effective exposure is a necessary
condition for any type of relationship to be established. I believe one of the greatest
challenges confronting public relations today is communicating with sufficient
power, i.e. being able to reach people multiple times to reinforce key messages.
Then, we can explore whether people understood or even agreed with the message.

 Context effects. Finally, an idea that has received increased attention from
researchers in consumer behavior concerns the way context affects people's actions,
including responses to messages. Broadly defined, context entails the way external
factors influence message processing. Context effects research suggests influence is
extremely situational--a fact that makes communication planning all the more
complex. Consumer researchers have identified a wide range of contextual effects
during the past 10 years. These range from priming effects that involve the influence
of one messages on another adjacent message to the importance of one's personal
circumstances (physical location, surroundings, mood, etc.) when storing and
retrieving information from memory. We largely treat public relations
communication as an isolated process that is independent of the many other
influences on people's lives. We must enrich our understanding of how people relate
to organizations in a context.

Decision-Making

In tandem with message processing research, consumer behavior has contributed valuable
insights about how people make decisions. Indeed, the study of judgment and decision-making
has become a separate subdomain within consumer psychology. As public relations
professionals, we need to be much better informed about decision-making processes and to
understand how people decide to buy, invest, donate, work and vote.

Considerable research suggests people are quite rationale in making judgments and
choices. For example, they often use cost/benefit frameworks to make decisions. Yet a wide
range of factors moderate the process. These include task variables (problem size, time pressure,
response mode, types of decision tasks, information format), context variability (similarity of
choices, correlation of attributes, comparable versus noncomparable choices, quality of
alternatives) and personal factors (prior knowledge, information processing abilities, etc).

In public relations theory, our assumption is that people are thoughtful and logical in
discussing and acting upon issues. However, considerable consumer behavior research suggests
that people are not always rationale and do not exert the same levels of effort to consider
problems.

Building upon basic research in psychology, consumer researchers have recognized the
central role that heuristics, or cognitive rules of thumb, play in making judgments. The two
 Consumer Behavior Research and Public Relations - 5

leading models in the persuasion literature, the elaboration likelihood model (Petty & Cacioppo,
1986) and the heuristic-systematic model (Chaiken, 1987), both posit that it heuristics (peripheral
cues in the ELM) can be instrumental in persuasion. For individuals with low levels of
motivation (e.g. involvement) or ability (e.g. knowledge) related to a particular topic, a heuristic
might be a sufficient basis upon which to make a judgment. For people with higher levels of
motivation or ability, heuristics can interact with logical thought processes to bias the results.

Public relations scholars and practitioners alike need to understand the various ways that
logical thought can be compromised when people who want to make proper judgments are
limited by motivation or ability. We also need to understand how decision making is influenced.
For example, Tversky and Kahneman (1981) demonstrated decision-making can be biased
dramatically merely by the perceptual framework in which a problem is posed. Last year, I
argued that framing is a concept that is particularly useful in public relations. Through the use of
alternative framing devices, public relations practitioners routinely shape the “frame” in which
people make decisions. In the coming decade, we need to learn much about how people make
judgments and decisions if we are going to ask them to make positive judgments about the
organizations we represent.

Role of Affect

A third broad area where we could learn more from consumer research concerns the
influence of affect and emotions on individuals' behaviors. Although public relations addresses
concepts such as problem recognition, risk and uncertainty, our literature falls short of addressing
the feelings these situations generate and the effect on people's thoughts, attitudes and actions. At
the same time, many practitioners conduct programs that play upon affective responses. The
intent is to create “warm, fuzzy feelings” among the members of target audiences.

The role of affect has been recognized since the time of Plato and Aristotle, who were the
first to differentiate affect from both cognition (thought processes) and motivation (desire).
Affect is a molar concept that can be defined broadly as "a valenced feeling state." Affect
subsumes the concepts of emotion (an intense and sometimes disruptive response to a stimulus)
and mood (a more generalized response elicited and maintained without conscious awareness of
its extent, cause or influence). Affect is distinct from attitude, which is a cognitive concept
defined as a judgment or predisposition toward a particular object (Cohen & Areni, 1991).

Studies in psychology and consumer research during the past two decades have fairly
consistently demonstrated that a person’s affective state impacts a wide range of cognitive and
conative behaviors. Positive affect has been demonstrated to be related to enhanced 1) recall, 2)
evaluative judgments, 3) free associations, 4) categorizations of novel and familiar stimuli.
Affect also impacts 5) decision rules in choice tasks, and 6) negotiation strategies in bargaining
tasks.

In the coming decade, we would benefit by understanding both sides of the affect
question. First, positive affect. The challenge is to understand under what circumstances, and to
what degree, the creation of positive affect in organizational communications influences people's
responses. Many practitioners intuitively understand the value of the hedonism (pleasure) and the
physiological responses that can be created through music, entertainment, atmospherics and
rhetoric. Yet, our literature is void in addressing the question. Alternatively, we also must
consider negative affect. How do feelings of sadness, grief, or anxiety negatively influence the
way people process information, particularly in situations involving crises, conflicts or risks?
 Consumer Behavior Research and Public Relations - 6

Two particularly relevant issues pertain to affect and message strategies. The first deals
with the use of information- versus emotion-driven messages. The notion of rational versus
emotional appeals dates back to the classic Yale studies, with mixed findings. In a series of
insightful studies, advertisers have differentiated between informational and transformational
advertising (Puto and Wells, 1984). Informational ads present factual information, while
transformational advertising appeals primarily to emotion and often relies upon visual imagery
and music. Both have been found to be effective, but the literature suggests sponsors must be
careful that information does not interfere with emotion, and vice versa. In light of the extensive
expenditures on corporate and issue advertising by a growing number of organizations, public
relations people would do well to understand more fully the underlying principles at work.

The second question pertains to the more general issue of how message affect impacts
responses to the subject matter of the message. A robust body of knowledge suggests that
people’s responses to messages a) directly impact how people think about the subject matter of a
message, and b) produce greater acceptance of message claims (Lutz, 1985). However, this idea
has only been tested with advertising. I think is important for us to see whether the same
principle applies to the myriad of other content classes used in public relations.

Relationships Between Organizations and Individuals

Considerable discussion has taken place recently about relationship building in public
relations (Broom, Casey & Ritchey, 1997; Ledingham & Bruning, 2000; Hon & Grunig, 1999).
Researchers have largely drawn upon the interpersonal communication to adapt principles
relevant to relationships between people to relationships between organizations and individuals.

What contribution might consumer research bring to the study of relationships?

Consumer behavior researchers have more than 15 years of experience dealing with the
concept of relationships. The emergence of relationship marketing in the mid1980s transformed
the focus of marketers from single transactional exchanges to the development of long-term (and
more profitable) customer relationships. Relationship marketing focuses on customer retention,
rather than customer acquisition, and encompasses a range of ideas pertinent to relationship
building in public relations. These include concepts such as customer value, service, frequent
customer contact, customization and quality performance.

Another important concept is branding. Branding is essentially a way to build a

relationship between an organization's products and users--particularly in circumstances where
people only have only limited interface with than organization, such as a package good firm.
Brand identity primarily incorporates issues such as naming and product/service design, while
brand image focuses on positioning of products or services relative to other brands in a category.
Brand loyalty measures the allegiance that users have to an organization or its brands, generally
measured in willingness to engage in repeated purchase behavior. Brand equity focuses on the
value-added created by a brand for an organization. Although I don't suggest that public relations
transform itself into marketing, I think the core ideas represented in branding can contribute to
our understanding of relationships between an organization and an individuals. This is
particularly so when the relationship is limited in purpose, with minimal personal consequences.

Recent efforts to codify the notion of relationships have focused on many of the same
constructs that are already found in the consumer behavior and marketing channels literature,
including trust and satisfaction. For example, more than 300 studies have been conducted related
to the question of customer satisfaction/dissatisfaction (for a review, see Andreasen, 1988).
 Consumer Behavior Research and Public Relations - 7

Finally, work conducted in the arena of social cognition processes provides an alternative
way to assess relationships. A substantial body of knowledge addresses how people develop
personal identities and self-schemas. Self-image and self-labeling have been closely linked to the
concepts of brand image and purchasing behavior. Research suggests that people strive for
congruity between their self-image (identity) and the products they purchase, use or give to
others. I would argue that people also strive for congruity between their self-image and their
schemas pertaining to organizations they consider important to them. People develop
expectations about the performance of organizations that are congruent with their self-schemas
and personal goals. This would suggest that a successful relationship can only exist when
organizations perform and otherwise behave in ways that are compatible with an individual's
expectations (organizational schemas).

A particularly insightful notion to evolve out of the consumer behavior research deals
with the attributions that people make about the actions of organizations. Wright (1986) suggests
that individuals develop general theories to explain the actions and intentions of organizations, at
least in a persuasion context. Wright suggests that these schemer schemas influence people's
responses to influence attempts. More generally, schemer schema can be conceptualized as
persuasion knowledge theory (Friestad & Wright, 1994, 1999). As people become increasingly
knowledgeable about public relations (and, yes, more cynical about what we do), I think this
knowledge will become increasingly important in defining the relationships between
organizations and people. In general, I think we need to understand more about what people think
about organizational communication activities. In order to establish and maintain a positive
relationship, individuals must perceive that organizations are not scheming against them, but
instead are operating with an range of behavior deemed acceptable.

Consumer Action Behaviors

Finally, public relations would benefit in the coming decade from examining in more
depth the consumer behavior research pertaining to consumer actions and responses to
organizations other the purchase of products and services.

Take, for example, complaints. We talk about disgruntled people and activism--but the
first line of line of action most people take with an organization is to complain. What does public
relations know about complaint behavior? Research suggests that the propensity to complain
about poor performance is can be explained by both the dissatisfaction itself as well as
characteristics of people individuals involved.

Similarly, consumer behavior research provides useful perspectives on the concept risk
which consumer researchers have defined alternatively as general uncertainty or physical danger.
Fear of risk is one of the most powerful linchpins that can escalate levels of both involvement and
activism. Consumer researchers have devoted consider time to the examination of risk and its
consequences, including individual compliance to standards, reliance upon warranties, and
understanding and responses to disclosures and warnings. I believe we can leverage much of the
knowledge that has been generated in the consumer behavior arena and apply it to risk-related
concerns in public relations.

Finally, consumer behavior research shares with public relations a common interest in
understanding the effectiveness of information efforts intended to improve the economic and
social well being of people. We can learn from consumer behavior findings on a variety of
 Consumer Behavior Research and Public Relations - 8

topics, including the effectiveness of information disclosures, consumer education programs, and
social marketing (public information) campaigns.

CONCLUSION

In outlining these five broad areas, this paper has five broad areas that should be priorities
for public relations research in the coming decade and has highlighted how consumer behavior
research might create opportunities for synergy. Numerous other very useful research topics
could be considered.

By focusing on key questions involving the behavior of individuals, I believe we must

develop a critical mass of knowledge that will help to extend our field's own body of knowledge,
and thus improve the performance of public relations programs. To be relevant to professionals,
public relations research must address more of the key problems that practitioners face today.

As scholars, our purpose should not be to provide easy, off-the-shelf, one-solution-fits-all

answers. Indeed, such answers probably don't exist. Instead, we ought to challenge the
conventional and the routine. We must address problems of individual behavior in greater depth
and in a much more sophisticated manner than we have in the past. That is one of our greatest
challenges for the new decade.

REFERENCES

Andreasen, Alan R. (1988). Consumer Complaints and redress: What we know and what
we don't know. In E. Scott Maynes (ed.), Research in the consumer interest: The Frontier (pp.
675-722).
Andreasen, Alan R. (1991). Consumer behavior research and social policy. In Thomas
S. Robertson and Harold H. Kassarjian (eds.), Handbook of consumer behavior (pp. 459-506).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Arndt, Johann (1976). Reflections on research in consumer behavior. In Beverlee B.
Anderson (ed.), Advances in Consumer Research 3 (pp. 213-221). Ann Arbor, MI: Association
for Consumer Research.
Blumer, Herbert (1966). The mass, the public and public opinion. In Bernard Berelson
(ed.), Reader in public opinion and communication, 2nd ed. (pp. 45-50). New York: Free Press.
Originally published in 1946.
Botan, Carl (1993). The paradigm struggle and public relations. Special issue of Public
Relations Review 19 (2).
Broom, Glen M., Casey, Shawna & Ritchey, James (1997). Toward a concept and theory
of organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research 9, 83-98.
Chaiken, Shelley (1987). The heuristic model of persuasion. In M.P. Zanna, J.M. Olson
and C. P. Herman (eds.). Social influence: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 5, pp. 5-49). Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cohen, Joel B. & Areni, Charles S. (1991). Affect and consumer behavior. In Thomas S.
Robertson & Harold H. Kassarjian (eds.), Handbook of consumer behavior (pp. 188-240).
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Dozier, David, Grunig James E. & Grunig, Larissa A. (1995). Manager's guide to
excellence in public relations and communication management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
 Consumer Behavior Research and Public Relations - 9

East, Robert (1997). Consumer behaviour. Advances and applications in marketing.

London: Prentice-Hall.
Friestad, Marian & Wright, Peter L. (1994). The persuasion knowledge model. How
people cope with persuasion attempts. Journal of Consumer Research 21(1), 1-31.
Friestad, Marian & Wright, Peter L. (1999). Everyday persuasion knowledge.
Psychology & Marketing 16(2), 185-194.
Goldberg, Marvin E., Fishbein, Martin & Middlestadt, Susan E. (1997). Social
marketing. Theoretical and practical perspectives. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, James E. (ed.) (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication
management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, James E. (1997).
Grunig, James E. & Hunt, Todd (1984). Managing public relations. Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt Brace.
Hallahan, Kirk (in press). Inactive publics: The forgotten publics in public relations.
Public Relations Review.
Hallahan, Kirk (1999). Seven models of framing. Implications for public relations.
Journal of Public Relations Research 11(2), 205-242.
Heil, Gary, Parker, Tom & Stephens, Deborah C. (1997). One size fits one. Building
relationships one customer and one employee at a time. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Holbrook, Morris B. (1995). Consumer research. Introspective essays on the study of
consumption. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hon, Linda C. & Grunig, James E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in
public relations. Gainesville, FL: The Institute for Public Relations.
Jacoby, Jacob (1976). ACR presidential address 1975. In Beverlee B. Anderson (ed.),
Advances in Consumer Research 3 (pp. 1-11). Ann Arbor, MI: Association for Consumer
Research.
Ledingham, John A. & Steven D. Bruning (eds.) (2000). Public relations as relationship
management. A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Lewis, David & Bridger, Darren (2000). The soul of the new consumer. Naperville, IL:
Nicholas Brealey Publishing.
Lutz, Richard J. (1985). Affecting and cognitive antecedents of attitude toward the ad: A
conceptual framework. In Linda F. Alwitt and Andrew A. Mitchell (eds.), Psychological
processes and advertising effects: Theory, research and application. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Payne, Adrian (ed.) (1995). Advances in relationship marketing. London: Kogan Page.
Petty, Richard E. & Cacioppo, John T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central
and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer/Verlag.
Puto, C. P. & Wells, William D. (1984). Informational and transformational advertising.
Differential effects of time. Advances in Consumer Research 11 (pp. 638-643).
Robertson, Thomas & Kassarjian, Harold H. (1991). Handbook of consumer behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Toth, Elizabeth L. & Heath, Robert L. (1992). Rhetorical and critical approaches to
public relations. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tversky, Amos & Kahneman, Daniel (1981). The framing of decision and the
psychology of choice. Science 211, 453-458.
Wright, Peter L. (1986). Schemer schema: Consumers intuitive theories about
marketers' influence tactics. In Richard L. Lutz (ed.), Advances in Consumer Research 13 (pp. 1-
3). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.