J a m e s E.

Grunig

Developing Economic
Education Programs
For The Press
The "'business-press conflict" which heated up during ttre 1970s has generated a host of
business-sponsored education programs designed to enlighten journalists and media con-
sumers about tire higher aims of free enterprise. Because business and the media are inter-
ested in different issues, this author suggests that the best form of economic education for
journalists, or persons studying to be journalists, would be a "dialogue" about the "public
affairs" in which business is involved.
James E. Grunig argues here that tire most effective form of communication by these
businesses is one that begins when a corporation attempts to learn from the public zvhat
adverse consequences it is h~ving on the public, and then explains to the public why those
events have occurred and what the corporation is doi,g to eliminate them.
Dr. Grunig is a professor in tire College of Journalism at the University of Maryland,
College Park.

1 / ' R i g Business Has a 'Black Eye,' Pollster Gallup Says. m This recent
L J r Lewspaper headline typifies the negative attitude toward large cor-
porations that is supposedly rampant among the American public, espe-
cially among young people. 2 Partly in an attempt to improve the public's
attitude toward big business, many large corporations and associations have
developed economic education programs aimed at the public-at-large,
employees, students, and journalists. Journalists and student journalists
have been targeted frequently, primarily because of a supposed conflict
between business and the press.
Economic education programs typically are built upon the assumption
that members of the public with knowledge of business and economics also
will have positive attitudes toward business, an assumption that has been
supported by economic education research 3 but not by other communication
research. 4 Although surveys show that the public has little khowledge about
business and economics,s they also show that people typically have favor-
able attitudes toward free enterprise. 6 Thus, there is reason to question the
typical economic education program that atteml~ts to correct factual mis-

43
Public Relations Red-Jew
understandings and to develop an understanding of basic economic prin-
ciples in the hope of developing a more positive attitude toward business.
A survey by Barlow and Kaufman showed that chief executive officers of
major corporations regard students as the top priority public for economic
education. 7 Thus, it is not surprising that m a n y recent economic education
programs have been developed for journalism students? This study attempted
to learn whether such programs for journalism students meet their objec-
t i v e s - b y first examining the interests, attitudes, and communication
behaviors of comparable groups of journalism and business students. The
study not only illuminated the nature of an effective economic education
program, but also shed light on the nature of the business-press conflict
and on the nature of effective public relations.

Summary of Results and Conclusions

This comparative study of 294 journalism and business students at the
University of Maryland suggests, in broad terms, that the widely discussed
conflict between business and the press may be less of a conflict than a
difference in perspective as to what is interesting and relevant. The study
shows that journalism students are only interested in business issues that
directly affect the public, such as pollution or the prices and quality of
products. Business students, on the other hand, also have an interest in
issues that are not as likely to affect the public directly, such as government
regulation, taxation, or size of corporate profits.
If we can make the logical jump from students to business and media
practitioners, this study suggests that corporate executives, instead of feel-
ing that business is treated unfairly by the media, should realize that the
media and business are interested in different issues. The media want to
report the consequences of business actions on the public, whereas business
executives want to educate the public about the free enterprise system
through the mass media.
Thus, the study suggests that the best form of economic education--at
least for journalism students--would be a dialogue about the "public affairs"
in which business is currently involved. Don't talk to students about the
glories of free enterprise, the evils of government regulation, or the size of
corporate profits, this research suggests. Instead, talk about what you are
doing to develop alternative energy sources, or why someone's automobile
or television set doesn't work, even though its price increases every year.
Theoretically, these results should be viewed as a challenge to the "dom-
ino theory" of communication, knowledge, attitudes, and behavior that
seems to be assumed in most economic education programs and, indeed,
in most public relations practice. Traditional economic education programs
have been based on the assumption that the public, students, or the media
have "bad attitudes" about business that cause them to oppose business.
Public relations practitioners have assumed that accurate knowledge of
business will change these bad attitudes and that the new attitudes will

44
 Economic Education Programs
result in more favorable public or media behavior. This domino theory can
be described as:
Message ~ Knowledge ~ Attitude 9 Behavior
The model assumes that if the message domino successfully topples the
knowledge domino the others will automatically fall, too.

In place of this underlying model, this article argues that a person makes
up his mind about each individual issue or situation and that he frequently
develops new attitudes for new situations. Evidence from this and other
communication studies shows that the most knowledgeable people gener-
ally have an attitude about an issue and that their behavior will reflect their
attitude about that issue. But there is little evidence that the knowledgeable
9person's attitude or behavior will consistently be that advocated by someone
communicating any particular message. Telling students, employees or the
media that government regulation is costly or that imports hurt domestic
enterprise may help these groups understand the business point of view,
but there is no guarantee that they will accept that point of view as their
o w n and act upon it to support business.
The results of this study refuted the knowledge-attitude linkage. The
student public with the most business knowledge--which consisted mostly
of business s t u d e n t s - - h a d a strong anti-business position on some issues,
had no strong position on other issues, and took both positions on still
others. A broad measure of attitudes toward business and government also
did not predict attitudes on specific issues. The business students, w h o
were pro-business and anti-government on the broad attitudinal measure,
were anti-business and pro-government on some specific issues.
The lack of support for the domino theory thus suggests that the best
economic education program--and the best public relations program in
general--should be a two-way program in which the corporation attempts
to learn from the public what adverse consequences it is having on the
public and tells the public what the corporation is doing about those con-
sequences. The results of the attitude part of the study show that the public
will be open-minded in such a dialogue, taking a business position when
it is reasonable, an anti-business position w h e n that is reasonable, and both
positions when both are reasonable.

Theoretical Background of the Study

The domino theory of communication, attitudes, and behavior has rap-
idly been abandoned by communication researchers who now believe it to
be an inadequate model of human behavior, 9 yet it lives on almost as a
truism for most public relations practitioners. The domino model represents
an unrealistic account of human behavior because it fails to recognize that
human beings can exert control at each of the four stages of the model. 1~
They may select only messages they deem to be relevant, retain only rele-
vant knowledge, construct and reconstruct attitudes as the situation changes,

45
Public Relations Review
and behave in seemingly inconsistent ways w h e n one situation is compared
to another.
Research over the last 30 years has gradually shown the weakness of two
of the three links in the model. The strongest link lies between messages
and knowledge. Stamm, for example, found support for the proposition
that information campaigns can increase public knowledge about environ-
mental issues, but found little support for the linkages between knowledge
and attitudes and attitudes and behavior." More than 40 years ago, LaPiere
found no support for the assumption that attitudes predict behavior. ~2Both
Festinger and Seibold reviewed studies relating attitudes and behavior and
failed to find a consistent relationship. ~3Crespi has argued that the attitude-
behavior relationship is stronger when attitudes are more specifically defined9
He added that "attitudes change, develop, and atrophy in reaction to
socially-defined situations and experiences. "'~ Thus, Crespi and many other
attitude researchers have conceded that attitudes must be defined as judg-
ments people make about different situations if the concept is to be realis-
tic. Is
Research has also shown the weakness of the knowledge-attitude linkage.
For example, several studies have found that knowledge about ecology
sometimes correlates with pro-environmental attitudes, which represents
much the same relationship as that assumed between economic knowledge
and pro-business attitudes. But they also have found that knowledge of
ecology just as often correlates with anti-environmental attitudes. ~6Grunig
and Stamm also found that people would "hedge" their environmental
attitudes in many situations--that is, hold two seemingly incompatible
attitudes at the same time. 17Their research indicates that Barlow and Kauf-
man, w h o found a correlation between economic knowledge and pro-
business attitudes, might also have found a similar correlation between
knowledge and anti-business attitudes had they looked for it.

To replace the domino model, I have developed a situational model of

communication behavior that places people into publics based on the simi-
larity of their situational perceptions and behaviors. It also predicts the
communication behaviors of these publics and describes the situation-spe-
cific attitudes that these publics hold. I have already used the theory to
describe the communication behavior of employee publics of two business
firms and a large government research agency, TM community publics of a
suburban hospital, ~9 consumer publics of a supermarket chain, 2~ publics
arising from issues of corporate social responsibility, ~ and publics arising
from environmental issues. 22 In other~research, Stamm and I have devel-
oped a situational theory of attitudes tO go along with the situational theory
9 9 ~ /

of commumcahon behavior. ~ I have used the situational theory of attitudes

in studies of public opinions toward corporate social responsibility 2~ and
toward the environment. 25
The theory uses four i n d e p e n d e n t - - o r predictor--variables to explain
how publics will communicate and when they will have attitudes about

46
 Economic Education Programs
specific situational issues. 26These four independent variables include prob-
lem recognition (whether a person stops to think about an issue), level of
involvement (whether the person connects himself with the issue), con-
straint recognition (whether the person thinks he can exert any personal
control that might help to resolve the issue), and presence of a referent
criterion (whether the person thinks he has a solution for the issue).
These four variables predict the expected communication behavior of
target publics. Communication behavior may either be active information
seeking or passive information processing. Actively communicating audiences
help the communicator get his message across. They look for information
and try to understand it w h e n they obtain the information. A passively
communicating audience, on the other hand, does not look for information
and generally will do little to understand the information if it comes to the
audience randomly. 27In addition, the style and creativity of a message have
more of an effect on passive audiences than on active ones. Active audiences
seek the message. Passive audiences must be lured into processing it--by
photos, illustrations, writing style, catchy phrases, etc.

In general, people will both seek and process information more often
w h e n they have a high level of problem recognition and level of involve-
ment, a low level of constraint recognition, and no referent criterion. How-
ever, level of involvement has less of an effect upon information processing
than the other variables and less of an effect upon information processing
than upon information seeking. People generally do not actively seek infor-
mation about situations that do not involve them. Yet, they will often
randomly process information about low-involvement situations when they
are not looking for specific information.
I have also used the combinations of the four predictor variables, mea-
sured for different situational issues, to define types of publics. People who
fit into the same combination'of the four variables can be called "publics"
because they will have approximately the same communication behavior
for an issue. The four variables, split into high and low categories, yield 16
possible combinations. To define these 16 combinations, I have begun by
naming the four combinations of problem recognition and constraint rec-
ognition: "problem-facing behavior" (high problem recognition, low con-
straint recognition); "constrained behavior" (high problem recognition, high
constraint recognition); "routine behavior" (low problem recognition, low
constraint recognition); and "fatalistic behavior" (lowproblem recognition,
high constraint recognition). Each of these four categories can then be
divided by level of involvement and presence of a referent criterion--e.g.,
high-involvement problem-facing behavior with a referent criterionmto
yield the 16 categories of publics. In several studies, I have calculated the
probability, or relative frequency, of information seeking and processing
for each of these 16 categories. I have then used these probabilities to choose
appropriate communication strategies for each public.

47
Public Relations Review
Recently, Stature and I have used Stamm's theory of cognitive strategies
to add an attitudinal component to this situational theory. :s Stamm identi-
fied two cross-situational attitudes toward conservation that he expected
people to apply consistently for different conservation issues. Stamm found
that people often applied the same attitude across issues. But he also found
that individuals sometimes held both attitudes for an issue, even though
the attitudes seemed incompatible. 29 In other cases, individuals switched
their attitudes from one issue to another. To explain these anomalies,
Stamm defined two types of "cognitive strategies," hedging and wedging.
A person hedges when he supports more than one solution to a problem.
He wedges when he supports one solution consistently across issues.

Research relating these strategies to the four concepts of the situational

theory shows that problem recognition, level of involvement, constraint
recognition, and presence of a referent criterion can predict when a person
will have "a" cognitive strategy but not "which" cognitive strategy he will
have. 3~Thus, the accumulated research on the situational theory seems to
show the four independent variables of the theory to be necessary condi-
tions for the presence of all four parts of the domino theory. They explain
w h e n a person will seek or process a message, which is necessary before
he can retain the message as knowledge. They also explain when the person
willdevelop "an" attitude and design "a" behavior. But the research also
shows that each person controls "the" attitude or behavior that he uses in
each situation and that specific attitudes and behaviors cannot easily be
predicted.
We were able to apply the cognitive strategy concepts to attitudes toward"
business in this study after recognizing that people could express both pro-
and anti-business positions on the same issue if we constructed attitude
statements somewhat differently than usual. Most researchers who con-
struct attitude scales assume that a person cannot be both for and against
something at the same time. Thus they express pro- and anti-business
positions as opposite ends of a continuum. Situational attitudes, however,
usually represent beliefs that certain objective consequences have occurred.
Thus, one could believe that a given business behavior has had both positive
and negative consequences and thus hold a pro- and anti-business attitude
at the same time. For example, a person could agree that "free enterprise
results in more efficient allocation of resources than does socialism" and
that "socialism results in more equitable income distribution than does
capitalism." A person w h o agrees with both statements would hedge his
attitudes toward free enterprise, a person w h o agrees with only one would
wedge.
In addition, cognitive strategies often change as situations change. A
person may wedge in favor of business on some issues, such as the effects
of free enterprise; hedge on others, such as the effects of government
regulation; and wedge against business on others,-such as pollution.

48
 Economic Education Programs
The Study Design 3~

An applied public relations study using the situational theory of com-

munication and attitudes begins by identifying those issues--or situa-
t i o n s - t h a t affect or that an organization could discuss with a given public.
We developed a list of issues frequently discussed in economic education
programs by reviewing published overviews of economic education and
interviewing public relations professionals working on economic education
in the Washington, D.C., area. 3~ We concluded that economic education
issues could be placed into three categories: 1) basic economic principles,
2) consequences on the public from business actions, and 3) business rela-
tions with government. We then chose three specific issues within each of
these categories to actually measure in this study. The three basic economic
principles included size of corporate profits, free enterprise vs. socialism
(alternative economic systems), and the law of supply and demand. Busi-
ness consequences included quality of goods and services, prices of goods
and services, and pollution. Business-government relationships included
governmental regulation of business, taxation of business, and amount of
government spending.
The next step in such an applied study is to measure the variables in the
theory on a representative sample of people w h o might be included in the
public relations program. In this case, we measured the variables on a
representative sample of journalism students at the University of Maryland,
We also included a matched sample of business students at the University
to determine whether journalism students would fit into different publics
and use different cognitive strategies than students who could be expected
to have more interest in and more favorable attitudes toward business.
After these variables are measured for a representative sample of a poten-
tial public, multivariate statistical techniques can be used to group issues
into categories of issues to which groups of people react in the same way.
The statistical analysis, that is, can identify the publics that different types
of issues bring about. Then we use demographic and cross-situational
attitude measures to describe and identify the publics isolated by the situ-
ational variables and to test the situational vs. cross-situational nature of
communication and attitudes. In this study, these variables included the
students' major, number of business and economics courses taken, grade-
point average, attitude toward business, attitude toward go.vernment, polit-
ical philosophy, political party affiliation, o w n or parent ownership of
corporate stock, readership of business publications, readership of the
n e w s p a p e r business page, age, parent education, sex, and race. We also
constructed scales to measure basic economic knowledge and exposure to
recent economic news in the mass media.
Finally, we'designed the study around three hypotheses (predicted rela-
tionships between variables) and two research questions (descriptions of a
single variable). The hypotheses tested the premises of the theory. The
research questions sought practical information suggested by the theory

49
Public Relations Review
that could be used to design an economic education program. The hypotheses
were:

H1: The probability of information-seeking behavior will increase with an increase

in problem recognition, level of involvement, and presence of a referent
criterion, and decrease with an increase in constraint recognition.
Ha: The probability of information processing behavior will increase with an
increase in problem recognition and presence of a referent criterion and
decrease with an increase in constraint recognition. Level of involvement will
have a minimal effect upon information processing because information proc-
essing, to a large extent, occurs randomly.
H3: The situational variables will define publics arising from the nine business
and economic situations and explain the commhnication behavior of these
publics.

The research questions were:

Q~: Will a student's major, educational and demographic background and cross-
situational attitude toward business and government discriminate the publics
defined by the situational variables from one another?
Q~: What cognitive strategies will the publics defined by the situational variables
use to resolve different business and economic issues?

Methodology
A sample of business and journalism students at the University of Mary-
land was drawn by administering a questionnaire to all students taking
courses required of majors in their respective professional colleges. The
questionnaire was completed by students in all sections of the business law
course in, the College of Business and Management and by students in four
historical, legal, and theory courses required of journalism students. The
total sample size was 294, of which approximately half were business and
half journalism students.
The four independent variables of the situational theory were measured
by asking respondents, for each of the nine situations: 1) Do you stop to
think about the issue often, sometimes, rarely, or never (problem recognition)?
2) Do you see a strong, moderate, or weak connection between yourself
and the issue (level of involvement)? 3) Could you do a great deal, something,
very little, or nothing personally to affect the way the issue is handled
(constraint recognition)? and 4) Do you have a very clear idea, somewhat
clear idea, hazy idea or no idea of what to do about the situation (presence
of a referent criterion)? Each of these question wordings had been developed,
tested, and improved in previous studies.
To measure information seeking, respondents were presented with a
hypothetical booklet or report title related to each of the nine situations and
asked (on a four-point scale) how likely they would be to send for the
booklet or report if they saw an announcement or advertisement offering
the material. (In fact, many economic education advertising campaigns have

50
 E c o n o m i c Education P r o g r a m s
offered such material.) To measure information processing, respondents
read opening lines from a television news story related to each situation
and were asked (on a four-point scale) how much attention they would pay
to the rest of the story. The two longer-term communication variables,
exposure to economic news and economic knowledge, were both measured
by asking five multiple-choice questions and summing correct responses
into a five-point scale.
The demographic variables used to discriminate publics were measured
through straight-forward questions. Cross-situational attitude toward busi-
ness was measured with a five-point scale asking if respondents supported
or opposed business in the United States. Cross-situational attitude toward
government was measured with a similar scale asking if government had
too much or too little power in the United States.

Because of the limitation of questionnaire space, the cognitive strategy

variables were measured for only three of the nine situations, one from
each of the basic categories. Respondents indicated on a five-point scale
the extent to which they agreed with a pro-business statement and an anti-
business statement related to each situation. On government regulation,
for example, the pro statement read, "Government regulation increases the
prices of goods and services produced by business" and the con statement
read, "Without government regulation, corporations would be less likely
to make socially-responsible decisions.'" Wedging scores were the absolute
value of the difference between the scores on the two statements. Hedging
scores were computed by adding the two scores and subtracting the abso-
lute value of their difference.
The first two hypotheses, which predicted that probabilities of informa-
tion seel~ing and processing would be.consistent ;,vit'h the situational theory,
were tested by dichotomizing the situational and communication variables
and calculating cohditioiI~l probabilities of information seeking and proc-
essing associated with each of the 16 kinds of communication behavior
which result from combinations of the four variables. Each situation was
treated as a single unit of analysis in calculating the probabilities. Thus,
they were based on 2,646 situations (nine situations x 294 respondents).
Hypothesis 3--that the situational variables would isolate publics,and
explain their communication behaviors--was tested through the u~e of
factor analysis and canonical correlation. The factor analysis grouped the
nine situations into categories which bring about similar publics. Canonical
correlation simultaneously relates a set of independent variables (the factor
scores of the situational variables) to a set of dependent variables (the factor
scores of the communication variables). The result was a set of canonical
variates which were used to identify publics and explain their communi-
cation behaviors.
The two research questions were addressed by placing respondents into
publics based upon the canonical variable for which they had the highest
canonical variate scores. Respondents below the mean on all canonical

51
Public Relations Re~qew
variates w e r e placed into a no-public category. To a n s w e r the first research
question, discriminant analysis was u s e d to d e t e r m i n e w h i c h d e m o g r a p h i c
variables a n d cross-situational attitudes w o u l d discriminate o n e public f r o m
a n o t h e r . To a n s w e r the s e c o n d research question, r e s p o n d e n t scores on the
cognitive s t r a t e g y variables w e r e b r o k e n d o w n b y publics, a n d o n e - w a y
analysis of variance w a s u s e d to d e t e r m i n e significant differences b e t w e e n
publics.

Results

H y p o t h e s e s 1 and 2
Table 1 p r e s e n t s the set of conditional probabilities calculated in this
s t u d y for the 16 c o m b i n a t i o n s of the situational theory. The probabilities in
Table 1 are consistent with the p r e d i c t i o n s of the theory as specified in
H y p o t h e s e s 1 a n d 2, n a m e l y that b o t h i n f o r m a t i o n seeking a n d p r o c e s s i n g

TABLE 1
Conditional Probabilities of Information Processing
and Information Seeking
High hwolt,ement Low Involvement

Information Information Information Information

Processing Seeking Processing Seeking
Problem Facing
Behavior"
Referent Criterion 85% 70% 69% 61%
No Referent Criterion: 77% 66% 46% 31%
Constrained
Behavior b
Referent Criterion 77% 58% 64% 42%
No Referent Criterion 65% ' 41% 47% 32%
Routine Behavior"
Referent Criterion 68% 42% 44% 44%
No Referent Criterion 65% 35% 48% 24%
Fatalistic Behaviora
ReferentCriterion 61% 33% 60% 25%
No. Referent Criterion 49~ 20% 30% 14%
All Situatio~zs
Probability 65% 46%
N" 2,560 2,547
qtigh problem recognition, low constraint recognition.
~High problem recognition, high constraint recognition.
'Low problem recognition, low constraint recognition.
dLow problem recognition, high constraint recognition.
9Sample sizes differ because of missing data.

52
 Economic Education P r o g r a m s
will increase with increases in problem recognition and presence of a refer-
ent criterion and decrease with an increase in constraint recognition. Level
of involvement was predicted to increase information seeking but not to
affect information processing. These probabilities are also remarkably con-
sistent with those calculated in four other studies. ~ The only deviation from
the theory in Table 1 is a tendency for information processing to drop off
more from high to low involvement than it has in previous studies. In line
with the theory, however, information processing does remain relatively
high under all low-involvement conditions.

Hypothesis 3
Hypothesis 3 stated that "the situational variables will define publics
arising from nine business and economic situations and explain the com-
munication behavior of these publics." Tables 2 and 3 present preliminary
data relevant to testing that hypothesis.
Table 2 presents mean scores on the four situational perception variables,
indicating which issues are most likely to bring forth communicating pub-
lics. These data indicate that problem recognition and level of involvement
are highest for the business consequences issues and lower, in order, for
the governmental relationship issues and basic economic situations. The
student respondents also were less likely to perceive constraints and more
likely to have a referent criterion for the business consequences than for
9the other two sets of issues.

TABLE 2

Mean Scores on Situational Variables for Economic Situations'

Problem Level of Constraint Referent

Recognition Involvement Recognition Criterion
Basic Economic Situations
Size of Corporate Profits 2.6 2.4 3.2 2.3
Alternative Economic Systems 2.6 2.5 3.1 2.3
Supply and Demand 2.7 2.8 ' 2.9 2.5
Business Consequences
Quality of Goods and Services 3.5 3.5 2.5 2.9
Prices of Goods and Services 3.7 3.6 2.5 2.9
Pollution 3.2 3.3 2.4 3.0
Governmental Relationships
Government Regulation of
Business 2.8 2.7 3.1 2.5
Taxation of Business 2.5 2.3 3.1 2.3
Government Spending 2.9 2.9 3.0 2.6

'Range = 1 - 4

53
Public Relations Review

Table 3 presents the results of the factor analyses which were conducted
separately for each of the six variables in the situational theory to group the
nine situations into a smaller number of categories. For each variable, two
factors resulted, with an eigen value greater than 1.0. These factors were
called the high-involvement situations factor and the low-involvement sit-
uations factor. The three business consequences situations--the situations
with the highest levels of involvement in Table 2--loaded consistently
highest on the high involvement factor for all variables. The other six
situations loaded consistently highest on the low-involvement factor.
Factor scores of the two factors for each of the six situational variables
and the scales for exposure to economic news and basic economic knowl-
edge then were used as input to a canonical correlation analysis, which
provided the principal test of Hypothesis 3. Table 4 shows that two statis-
tically significant variables resulted from the canonical correlation analysis.
The first of these variates describes a set of situational perceptions and
communication behaviors that would be characteristic of a public commu-
nicating about both sets of business/economic situations. The second variate
describes the perceptions and communication behaviors of a public com-
municating only about the high-involvement business consequences.
The public described by the first variate would fit into a high-involvement,
problem-facing category on both sets of situations, with a referent criterion
for both sets. The probabilities of information seeking and processing are
high for this public on both sets of issues, and the correlations of the
communication variables with the canonical variates in the bottom half of
Table 4 confirm these probabilities. 3~ Actual exposure to economic news
and economic knowledge also are high for this public.
Variate 2 describes a high-involvement, problem-facing public with a
referent criterion on the high-involvement situations and a low-involve-
ment, fatalistic public without a referent criterion on the low-involvement
situations. The probability of information seeking and processing is high
for the high-involvement business situations and low for the low-involve-
ment business situations; the coefficients in the bottom half of Table 4
confirm these probabilities. The scores for the exposure to economic news
scales and the economic knowledge scale were low for this variate, however.
These last two scales consisted mainly of items related to the low-involve-
ment issues, thus confirming the expected communication behavior of the
high-involvement-only public represented by the second variate.
In summary, we can conclude that Table 4 provides strong support for
Hypothesis 3; the situational perceptions do explain the communication
behaviors of the publics.

Research Question 1
Given these two types of student publics, Research Question 1 asked
what kinds of students make up these publics. The discriminant analysis
reported in Table 5 shows which characteristics of the students best dis-
criminated one public from another. As discussed above, those respondents

54
 Economic Education P r o g r a m s
gu!ssaaoJ d
uo!leuaaojuI

~uplaas
uo!leuJ.mjuI

uo.ual.uD
"~ lUa~aJa~l

~ uo.mu~oaa~I
"~ lu!e~IsuoD
I I I I

luawa,+.lOAUI
.to IOAa'I . . . . m~ ~ .

uo!l!ugo~o~l
tualqOJd ~. . . . m~ ~

gu!ssa3o~ d
uo!leuJaojul

guHaaS
uoqeu-uojuI ~ . . ~ ~ .

uo.ual.uD
1- lUOaajaH

lull~ii~uoD
I II

luamoAIO.~Ul
jo Ia^~"l
uo!l!ugo3aH
walqo~d

~ .~ . ~ ~, "~ ~
~ o ~ ~ o,~ .~ ~

.~, ~ o ~ ~o
~ o ~ o ~ o ~,.=
~-o ~
~: ~ "~, ~" 0 ~ r~ 0

ww
Public Relations Re,~iew

TABLE 4

Canonical Correlation of Situational Variables

With Communication and Knowledge Variables

High~Low hwoh,ement High hwoh,ement

Variate Variate
Pearson Predicted Pearson Predicted
Correlation Probability" Correlation Probability'

Situational Factors
High Involvement:
Problem Recognition .46 .65
Level of Involvement .31 .36
Constraint Recognition -.53 - .37
Referent Criterion .32 .51
Low Involvement:
Problem Recognition .78 - .41
Level of Involvement .66 - .19
Constraint Recognition -.46 .40
Referent Criterion .66 - .51

Communication~Knowledge Factors
High Involvement:
Information Seeking .44 70% .78 70%
Information Processing .36 85% .56 85%
Ldw Involvement:
Information Seeking .68 70% - .33 14%
Information Processing .75 85% - .35 2O%
Exposure to Economic News .57 - .19
Economic Knowledge .33 -.17
Canonical Correlation .62 .47
Chi Square 212.73 93.17
48dr,.000 35d f,.000
9Taken from Table 1

with scores below the mean on both canonical variates were placed into a
third, no-public group. The maximum number of discriminating functions
in a discriminant analysis is always one less than the number of groups; in
this case, the maximum is two functions. The second function in Table 5
does not explain a significant amount of variance left unexplained by the
first function. There is enough new information in the second function,
however, to make its interpretation informative, even though it is not
statistically significant. The first function essentially separates a high- and
low-involvement issues public from the high-involvement-issues-only pub-
lic and the no-public group. The second function helps to describe some-
what more the high-involvement-issues-only public.
The high- and low-involvement-issues public consists more of business
students than journalism and public relations students. Members of this
public are not Republicans, are both blacks and whites, are males, have

56
 Economic Education P r o g r a m s

TABLE 5

Discriminant Analysis of Economic Education Publics

Discriminant Function
I II
Standardized Coefficient of
Discriminating Variables
Business/Economics
Courses* - .33 .07
Grade Point Average .10 -.27
Attitude Toward
Business** .28 - .25
Attitude Toward
Government* - .16 - .27
Liberal Political
Philosophy .25 - .08
Self/Parent Ownership
of Stock - .25 .26
Readership of Business
Publications** .25 .25
Readership of
Newspaper Business
Page** .59 .16
Age** .33 .01
Parent Education .16 -.26
Male Sex** .24 -.09
White Race .04 -.33
Republican Party'* -.16 .42
Public Relations Major** -.13 .17
Journalism Major* .02 .46
Business Major** .11 -.17
Centroids of Publics
! tigh/Low Involvement
Issues (n =96) .51 .01
High Involvement Issues
(n=98) -.35 .15
Neither Public (n = 53) -.28 -.30

Canonical Correlation' .41" .17

* p < .05
**p < .01
9 The discriminant functions correctly placed 55% of the cases into original publics.

educated parents, are older, neither they nor their parents own stock, and
have higher grade-point averages. Further confirming their expected com-
munication behavior, they report reading business publications and the
newspaper business page. When asked what their general attitude is toward
business and government, this public says it supports business and thinks
government has too much power. The only surprising score for this public

57
Public Relations Review
is the negative relationship with the number of business and economics
courses taken.
Function II describes the high-involvement-issues-only public as consist-
ing of more journalism and public relations students than business stu-
dents. Most of this public's characteristics are opposite those of the other
public: Republican party, black race, female, lower parent education, lower
age, more stock ownership, lower grade point average, and less support of
business. The characteristics which are not opposite are readership of busi-
ness publications and the business page, and the attitude that government
has too much power.
We can conclude from "Fable 5, then, that business students are more
likely to communicate about both high- and low-involvement situations and
journalism and public relations students only about high-involvement,
business-consequences, issues. The high/low involvement public also sup-
ports business more than the high only public, but both have negative
attitudes toward government. The high/low public also consists of better
students who tend to be male and white and whose parents have more
education. Thus, major in the university does affect a student's interest in
business and economics. More importantly, perhaps, the interest of the
high/low public in both kinds of issues may be better explained by the
educational background and intellectual ability of these students than by
their major.

Research Question 2
The second research question asked what cognitive strategies the publics
defined by the situational issues will use to resolve business and economic
issues. The data relevant to that question should indicate whether publics
have consistent attitudes for or against business on different issues, whether
students oppose business points of view in general, and whether journalism
students are more or less biased against business than business students.
Many opinion polls have shown that the public supports business and
free enterprise in general but opposes m a n y specific business actions which
have negative consequences for the public. This is also evident in Table 6
for the business consequences issue, pollution. The total sample is most
likely to take an anti-business position on this issue, agreeing that govern-
mental pollution controls are necessary to protect the environment and to
wedge this position against the pro-business position that government
pollution controls reduce the productivity of business. This pattern is strongest
for the high- and low-involvement issues public, which has the most busi-
ness students and the most knowledge about business. The differences
between publics are not significant, however, and all fit the same pattern.
For the basic economic situation, supply and demand, all publics have
low scores on all four cognitive strategies. In this case, however, the high/
low public has the lowest scores on all variables, significantly lower on the
hedging variable. The two attitude statements on supply and demand were
controversial: "In a free enterprise system, the law of supply and demand

58
 E c o n o m i c Education P r o g r a m s
' ~ . o ~ . . . ~
~ " ~ ~

r.8~ ,*.

~m

~o oo.00 ~ ooo.oo i. ~ 0o.0.0

~~

~9
Public Relations Review
guarantees that consumers receive the highest quality goods and services
at the lower possible prices" vs. "Large corporations can set their own
prices free of the law of supply and demand." Yet, most of the students
seemed to be neutral about the system, especially those who know the
most about it.
The government regulation of business issue brought both high pro- and
anti-business positions, and as a result the highest hedging scores, espe-
cially by the high/low involvement issues public. Those who knew the most
about economics agreed with both sides of the issue: Government regula-
tion increases prices and also that it forces businesses to make socially
responsible decisions. Thus, as speculated earlier, knowledge may be cor-
related with opinions on both sides of an issue.

Conclusions
Two primary conclusions seem warranted from this study, one for the
theories involved and the other for economic education and public relations
in general.
Theoretically, the situational theory received greater support than the
domino theory, as the data clearly supported its predictions. The first link
in the domino theory, between message exposure and knowledge, found
support in this study, as it has in other studies. Those students who sought
or processed the most information had the most economic knowledge. But
the linkage between knowledge and attitude again was refuted. The public
with the most knowledge sometimes had a strong anti-business position
and sometimes took both positions. The study also refuted the cross-situ-
ational definition of attitudes. The public that was pro-business and anti-
government on broad attitudinal measures was anti-business and pro-gov-
ernment in some specific situations.
The implications of the study for economic education seem best sum-
marized by the "knowledge gap" hypothesis developed by Tichenor, et al. a5
When an issue does not directly involve most people--such as most busi-
ness and economic issues--only those people with more education and
knowledge will seek, or even process, the information. As a result, a cam-
paign to increase knowledge levels on low-involvement issues will generally
widen the knowledge gap between the information-rich and the informa-
tion-poor. As this study showed, most traditional economic education pro-
grams about profits, free enterprise, and the like will be sought or processed
only by those who already know the most about business and economics
and thus will do little to solve the problem for which the program was
designed.
On the other hand, w h e n a situation involves most people, the knowl-
edge gap generally disappears because people then are motivated to seek
o u t - - o r at least to process--information related to the issue. That seems to
be the case for situations in which business has direct consequences upon
people. I have found similar results in a study of public opinions toward

60
 Economic Education Programs
corporate social responsibility. Both studies thus suggest that the best eco-
n o m i c e d u c a t i o n - - a n d p u b l i c r e l a t i o n s in g e n e r a l - - i s a t w o - w a y d i a l o g u e
in w h i c h a c o r p o r a t i o n a t t e m p t s to l e a r n f r o m t h e p u b l i c w h a t a d v e r s e
c o n s e q u e n c e s it is h a v i n g u p o n t h e p u b l i c a n d tells t h e p u b l i c w h y t h o s e
c o n s e q u e n c e s h a v e o c c u r r e d a n d w h a t t h e c o r p o r a t i o n is d o i n g to e l i m i n a t e
those consequences.

References
~Washington Star, February 16, 1979, p. E-5.
~Gallup also cited the negative attitudes of young people in ibid. For another recent study
of attitudes toward business, see U.S. News and World Report," The Study of American Opinion:
1978 Summary Report," Washington, D.C.
3Walter Barlow and Carl Kaufmann, "Public Relations and Economic Literacy," Public Rela-
tions Review 1 (Summer 1975), pp. 14-22.
4For a review of much of this research, see James E. Grunig, "Review of Research on
Environmental Public Relations," Public Relations Review 3 (Fall 1977), pp. 36-58 and James E.
Grunig, "Communication Behaviors and Attitudes of Environmental Publics: Two Studies,"
Journalism Monographs, in progress.
5Washington Star, op. cit.
~eymour Martin Lipset and William Schneider, "'] tow's Business? What the Public Thinks,"
Public Opinion 1 (July/August 1978), pp. 41-47; Washington Star, op. cit; Barlow and Kaufman,
op. cir.
7Barlow and Kaufman, op. cit.
eEor examples of such programs, see National Association of Manufacturers, "Covering the
Economics/Business Beat: Current Issues and Future opportunities," Special Report on Pilot
Project Workshop held at the University of Maryland College of Journalism, Washington,
1976, and "Business and the News Media, What are the Roles of Each?", 1979 General Motors
Business Understanding Program, Detroit: General Motors, Inc., 1979.
9For a review of such literature, see Steven Jay Gross and C. Michael Niman, "Attitude-
Behavior Consistency: A Review," Public Opinion Quarterly 39 (1975), pp. 358-368.
~~ further discussion of this idea, see James E. Grunig, "The Status of Public Relations
Research," IPRA Review 3 (April 1979), pp 9-16. Tirone has also argued that it is impossible to
discover laws in the behavioral sciences. James F. Tirone, "Education, Theory, and Research
in Public Relations," P,~blicRelations Review 5 (Spring 1979), pp. 15-25.
~tKeith R. Stamm, "Environment and Communications," in F. Gerald Kline and Phillip J.
Tichenor (eds.), Current Perspecti~,es in Mass Communication Research (Beverly Hills: Sage Pub-
lications, 1972), pp. 265-294 and Keith R. Stamm, "Conservation Communications Frontiers:
Reports of Behavioral Research," in Clay Schoenfeld (ed.), Interpreting Enviromnental Issues
(Madison, Wis.: Dembar Educational Research Services, Inc., 1973), pp. 227-236.
~2Richard T. LaPiere, "'Attitudes vs Actions," Social Forces 13 (1934), pp. 230-237.
'3Leon Festinger, "Behavioral Support for Opinion Change," Public Opinion Quarterly 28
(1964), pp. 404-417; David R. Seibold, "The Attitude-Verbal Report-Overt Behavior Relation-
ship in Communication Research: A Critique and Theoretic Reformulation," paper presented
to the Association for Education in Journalism, San Diego, 1974.
~Irving Crespi, "Attitude Measurement, Theory, and Prediction," Public Opinion Quarterly
28 (1977), pp. 285-294.
'~See, for example, Alien E. Liska (ed.), The Consistency Controversy (Cambridge, Mass.:
Schenkman Publishing Co., 1975).
~6Examples of such studies include Phillip J. Tichenor, G.A. Donohue, C.N. Olien, and J.K.
Bowers, "Environment and Public Opinion," Journal of Environmental Ed,~cation 2 (Summer
1971), pp. 38-42; Lane Burrus-Bammel, "Information's Effect on Attitude: A Longitudinal
Study," Journal of Environmental Education 9 (Summer 1978), pp. 41-50; and Gordon L. Bultena,
David L. Rogers, and Karen A. Conner, "Toward Explaining Citizens Knowledge about a
Proposed Reservoir," Journal of Environmental Education 9 (Winter 1977), pp. 24-36.

61
Public Relations Review
~TJames E. Grunig and Keith R. Stamm, "Cognitive Strategies and the Resolution of Envi-
ronmental Issues: A Second Study," Journalism Quarterly 56 (1979), pp. 715-726; Keith R.
Stamm and James E. Grunig, "Communication Situations and Cognitive Strategies in Resolv-
ing Environmental Issues," Journalism Quarterly 54 (1977), pp. 713-720.
~%mes E. Grunig, "Some Consistent Types of Employee Publics," Public Relations Review 1
(Winter 1976), pp. 17-36 and James E. Grunig, "Evaluating Employee Communication in a
Research Operation," Public Relations Review 3 (Winter 1977), pp. 61-82.
~gJames E. Grunig, "Defining Publics in Public Relations: The Case of a Suburban t tospital,"
Journalism Quarterly 55 (1978), pp. 109-118, 124.
~~ E. Grunig, "A Case Study of Organizational Information Seeking and Consumer
Information Needs," paper presented to the Association for Education in Journalism, San
Diego, 1974.
2~James E. Grunig, "A New Measure of Public Opinions on Corporate Social Responsibili-
ties," Academy of Management Journal 22 (1979), pp. 738-764.
Z~Grunig, "Communication Behaviors and Attitudes of Environmental Publics: Two Stud-
ies," op. cit.
~Grunig and Stamm, op. cit.; Stamm and Grunig, op. cit.
2~Grunig, "A New Measure of Public Opinions on Corporate Social Responsibility," op. tit.
Z3Grunig, "Communication Behaviors and Attitudes of Environmental Publics: Two Stud-
ies," op. cit.
2~For a detailed description of this theory, see Grunig, "A New Measure of Public Opinions
on Corporate Social Responsibility," op. cit. and ibid.
2TForempirical support of these ideas; see James F. Grunig, "Time Budgets, Level of Involve-
ment, and Use of the Mass Media, Journalism Quarterly 56 (1979), pp. 248-261.
~sStamm and Grunig, op. cit.; Grunig and Stamm, op. cit.
~Keith R. Stature and John E. Bowes, "Environmental Attitudes and Reaction," Journal of
Enviromnental Education 3 (Spring 1972), pp. 56-60.
~Grunig and Stamm, op. cit.
3~This study was conducted as part of the Seminar in Corporate Communication in the
University of Maryland College of Journalism. Students in the seminar, who played an invalu-
able role in designing and executing the study, included Karla Rabin, Alison Lapetina, Ken
Kalman, Debra Epstein, and Janet Cunningham. Statistical analyses were done at the Univer-
sity of Maryland Computer Science Center with financial assistance from the Center.
32Source materials included "Economic Education Programs and Resources," 2nd ed., National
Association of Manufacturers, Washington, 1978; "Organizations Providing Business & Eco-
nomics Education Information," Standard Oil Company (Indiana), Chicago, 1978; "Contact:
A Directory of Interpreting Business/Economic Education Programs," U.S. Chamber of Com-
merce, Washington, 1978; "Annual Message on Interpreting Business/Economic Education,"
U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Washington,, 1978. Personal discussions were held with John
Sullivan of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and Janet David and Lane Johnstone of the
American Petroleum Institute.
3~James E. Grunig and James B. Disbrow, "Developing a Probabilistic Model for Commu-
nications Decision Making," Communication Research 4 (1977), pp. 145-168; Grunig, Commu-
nication Behaviors and Attitudes of Environmental Publics: Two Studies," op. cit.; and Freeman
Miller, "A Nationwide Study to Determine Under What Conditions Administrators of Physical
Education Programs Will Engage in Public Relations," Ph.D. dissertation, University of Mary-
land, College Park, 1978.
UPearsonian correlation coefficients of the original variables with the canonical variates were
used to interpret the canonical variates, rather than canonical variate scores, following the
advice of Levine. Correlation coefficients do not have the problems of multicoUinearity that
affect canonical variate scores. Mark S. Levine, Canonical Analysis and Factor Comparison (Beverly
Hills: Sage University Papers, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, No. 6.
~Phillip J. Tichenor, G.A. Donohue, and C.N. Olien, "Mass Media Flow and Differential.
Growth in Knowledge," Public Opinion Quarterly 34 (1970), pp. 159-170, and George A.
Donohue, P.J. Tichenor, and C.N. Olien, "Mass Media and the Knowledge Gap: A Hypothesis
Reconsidered," Communication Research 2 (1975), pp. 3-23.

62