Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 319–324

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Public Relations Review

Public perceptions of public relations

Candace White ∗, Joosuk Park476 Communications Building, School of Advertising and Public Relations, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 15 January 2010Received in revised form 17 June 2010Accepted 3 September 2010

Keywords:Perceptions of public relationsMedia portrayal of public relationsSecond-level agenda setting effects

a b s t r a c t

Public relations has been portrayed in the media in a consistently negative manner overseveral decades, providing images that may become part of public perceptions. Percep-tions about public relations affect the perceived credibility of the profession and influencewhether people see public relations as valuable to society. Second-level agenda setting andcultivation theories purport that mass media contribute to beliefs about social reality bycreating a cumulative, general consciousness upon which assumptions and judgments arebased, suggesting that public perceptions about public relations would match media por-trayal. Results of a telephone survey found public relations is perceived more positively thanmedia portrayal would suggest. Respondents viewed public relations as an important activ-ity that benefits society by providing information and disagree that it is damage control,an attempt to hide or disguise something, or a non-substantive activity. However, publicrelations is associated with publicity, media relations, and the attempt of an organizationto advance its own agenda.

© 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Studies that have examined how public relations is portrayed in the media have found consistent negative stereotypicalthemes; furthermore, analogous themes have been identified independently by different scholars (Henderson, 1998; Jo,2003; Keenan, 1996; Park, 2001; Spicer, 1993; White & Lambert, 2006). Themes found across previous studies includeconceptualizations of public relations as damage control, publicity, an attempt to hide or disguise the truth, an attempt toadvance a company’s agenda, and public relations as non-substantive activities. When negative themes are consistentlyconveyed by journalists, the aggregate of the themes becomes an interpretive package or “stock of frames” that conveysimplicit as well as explicit meanings (Van Gorp, 2007). In addition to the identification of consistent themes, studies havefound that the term public relations is often used gratuitously in news stories that are not about public relations (Kinsky& Callison, 2008; Scrimger and Richards, 2002). The use of terms such as “public relations gimmick” and “public relationsnightmare” to describe unethical or unfortunate occurrences in news stories that have nothing to do with public relationscreates negative impressions of the profession.

The concept of second-level agenda setting has been used to describe the impact of media frames on audiences’ inter-pretations, extending agenda-setting theory from the media telling us what to think about, to how to think about it as well(Scheufele, 1999). Second-level agenda setting theory is similar to cultivation theory (Gerbner, Gross, & Signorielli, 1980) inthat it suggests that media contribute to our beliefs about social reality by creating a cumulative general consciousness uponwhich assumptions and judgments are based. The choice of words used by journalists, or how they frame a phenomenon,implies value judgments. Frames embedded in media content interact not only with the schemata of media audiences, but

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 865 974 5112; fax: +1 865 974 2826.E-mail address: white@utk.edu (C. White).

0363-8111/$ – see front matter © 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2010.09.002

320 C. White, J. Park / Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 319–324

with the schemata of other journalists who are also susceptible to media frames (Scheufele, 2004; Van Gorp, 2007). Jour-nalists often pick up and use one another’s framing schemata to adopt a “stock” of frames that become a persistent part ofour culture (Van Gorp, 2007). The use of a consistently negative stock of media frames could affect how audiences perceivepublic relations, which in turn affects perceptions about the credibility of the profession and the importance people ascribeto its value to society.

The purpose of this study is to explore if the negative bias and stereotypical stock of frames used by journalists todescribe public relations, which have been identified in previous studies, are reflected in perceptions of public relationsamong a sample of the general population.

2. Portrayal of public relations in the media

Even though public relations is of value to society, academic studies have found that journalists have consistently used theterm public relations in negative contexts. In 1993, Spicer analyzed 84 articles that contained the term public relations, andfound the term was used in a negatively embedded context more than 80% of the time. Public relations was overwhelminglyportrayed as an attempt to sidestep or manipulate the truth. Keenan (1996) used Spicer’s categories as framework for theanalysis of network newscasts and drew similar conclusions about embedded negative meanings. The negative connotationof public relations also was found in Korean newspapers. Park (2001) used Spicer’s categories as the framework for contentanalysis of the use of the term Hong Bo (public relations), and concluded that Korean reporters and editors hold similarnegative bias toward public relations.

Spicer used a convenience sample of articles, rather than a census or random sample, and it is likely that many of thearticles that he and his colleagues collected were negative examples that may have affected subsequent studies that utilizedhis categories. In order to avoid the negative bias that may have been inherent in Spicer’s categories, White and Lambert(2006) looked at a census of newspaper stories that contained the term public relations in The New York Times during a4-month period, without a priori assumptions, to see how public relations was defined contextually. The study found thatin almost all of the articles, public relations was used in a negative context. Furthermore, the contextual definitions werecongruent with themes found in earlier studies, indicating that journalists may indeed adopt a “stock of frames.” The commonthemes, which were used as independent measures in the survey, were: public relations as damage control, an attempt tohide or disguise something, an attempt to advance a company’s own agenda, publicity, or a non-substantive activity (smokeand mirrors).

These findings lead to the first five hypotheses. H1 Respondents will agree that public relations is as an organization’sattempt to hide or disguise something. H2 Respondents will agree that public relations is a non-substantive activity–justsmoke and mirrors. H3 Respondents will agree that public relations is an attempt to advance a company’s own agenda. H4Respondents will agree that public relations is damage control. H5 Respondents will agree that public relations is the samething as publicity.

Studies about media portrayal of public relations have found the term is often used negatively in news stories that havenothing to do with public relations. Public relations is frequently used as an adjective (public relations stunt, public relationsdisaster) regardless of the topic of the article (White & Lambert, 2006). In an analysis of evening news broadcasts, Kinsky andCallison (2008) also found the term used as an adjective and often used as a meaningless cliché or platitude with negativeconnotations. In an examination of Canadian newspapers, Scrimger and Richards (2002) found the term public relationswas often inflammatory, and more than half the time used in the lead paragraph of the stories, possibly to provide drama,regardless of the issue or news topic of the story. These studies provide evidence that is consistent with Pan and Kosicki’s(1993) belief that frames can be distinct from the topic of the news story.

Recent studies have considered framing as a theory of media effects. Stock phrases and stereotyped images in the mediacontribute to cognitive frames, defined as “a consistent bundle of schemata with emerges in discourse and influences infor-mation processing” (Scheufele, 2004, p. 405) that lead to second-level agenda setting effects. Second-level agenda settingeffects are the impact of media frames on audiences’ interpretations (Scheufele, 1999). Frequent exposure to such refer-ences to public relations could lead media audiences to form negative perceptions about the profession, leading to the nexthypothesis. H6 There will be correlations between heavier use of media and agreement with the themes found in the mediastock of frames about public relations.

Media definitions differ from the definition of public relations held by scholars and many practitioners. Henderson(1998) looked at not only whether the term public relations was used positively or negatively, but if it was used accurately,determined by comparing contextual definitions found in news stories to the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA)definition. The study found that media definitions matched the standard PRSA definition only about 5% of the time; publicrelations was portrayed negatively 85% of the time. Jo (2003) used a quantitative content analysis to explore the meaningsand connotations of public relations in both newspapers and network television by comparing journalists’ meanings toHutton’s (1999) dimensions of public relations definitions. The meaning of the term most often fell into the category ofimage/reputation management, and was more likely to be negative when the story dealt with business corporations or stateand federal government.

In order to balance and objectify the questionnaire, positive attributes and public relations functions were interspersed onthe survey with the themes found in studies about media portrayal of public relations (see Table 1), leading to the researchquestions. RQ1 How are positive attributes of public relations perceived? RQ2 How does the term public relations rank

C. White, J. Park / Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 319–324 321

Table 1Survey items (measured by agreement on 5-point Likert scale).

Themes in studies of media portrayal of public relations Positive attributes Public relations functions

Public relations is . . . Public relations. . . Public relations involves. . ... . .damage control . . .benefits society by providing information . . .community relations. . .an attempt to hide or disguise something . . .contributes to the financial success of organizations . . .crisis management. . .an attempt to advance a company’s own agenda . . .is a good expenditure . . .corporate philanthropy. . .a non-substantive activity (smoke and mirrors) . . .moves an organization forward . . .corporate communications. . .publicity

Table 2Alpha coefficients.

Media portrayal of public relations Positive attributes Public relations functions

Cronbach ˛ .704 (n = 5) .702 (n = 4) .703 (n = 4)

in importance compared to other terms for functional communication activities of public relations? RQ3 Do respondentsequate public relations with media relations?

3. Method

A survey using computer-assisted telephone interviews was conducted to measure perceptions about public relations.Data were collected by a university research institute using randomly generated telephone numbers. The sample wasstatewide; 455 interviews were completed. The response rate was 42%, measured as the ratio of attempts to completedquestionnaires. All items were measured on a five-point Likert scale; direction was reversed on some items for internalvalidity, and then flipped for analysis. Items used in the survey are in Table 1. Respondents were also asked demographicinformation and about their amount of media use, measured as the amount of time they spent each week using variousmedia channels. Data were analyzed using SPSS.

4. Results

The median age of the respondents was 50 years old; 39% were men and 61% were women. Thirty-nine percent had 4 yearsof college or more. The sample demographics are comparable to national demographics except median age, which is olderthan the national median age of 35. (This difference has implications for the future of telephone surveys, since randomlygenerated numbers do not include cell phones.) The education level of the sample is higher than national demographics, butsimilar to the level of education found in most telephone surveys.

The first five hypotheses examined the relationship between media themes of public relations and respondents’ agree-ment with that meaning. One-sample t-tests, with the mean response of 3.295 (SD = 1.06) of the five items, were used totest these hypotheses. One sample t-tests, also known as one-sample location tests, were employed to assess whether thesample has statistical inference of a normally distributed population specified in a null hypothesis (Kerlinger & Lee, 1999).In other words, one sample t-tests tested whether the sample’s responses were located closer to the test hypotheses orto the null hypotheses. Even though the study is not about finding dimensions and items of measurement scale, the alphacoefficient was tested as an assessment for reliability for each group of concepts (media portrayal of public relations, positiveattributes, and functions of public relations). Alpha coefficients are reported in Table 2.

H1. Respondents will agree that public relations is as an organization’s attempt to hide or disguise something.

This hypothesis was not supported. The mean response to the statement was 2.64, indicating that respondents disagreedwith the statement (t(445) = −12.636, p = .001). The variable mean and test mean were significantly different, which indicatesthat respondents disagreed that public relations is an organization’s attempt to hide or disguise something.

H2. Respondents will agree that public relations is a non-substantive activity – just smoke and mirrors.

This hypothesis was not supported. The mean response to this statement was 2.58 (t(432) = 14.445, p = .001), indicatingrespondents had statistically significant disagreement with the statement.

H3. Respondents will agree that public relations is an attempt to advance a company’s own agenda.

This hypothesis was supported with a mean response of 3.55 (t(448) = 5.382, p = .001). Respondents agreed with thisstatement with a mean response that was significantly above the test mean.

H4. Respondents will agree that public relations is damage control.

This hypothesis was not supported. The mean response was 2.80, showing disagreement with the statement(t(441) = −9.771, p = .001).

322 C. White, J. Park / Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 319–324

Table 3Correlation coefficients of heavier media users and media definitions.

Public relations is. . . TV Newspapers

Smoke and mirrorsSpearman’s rho .056 −.017sig. (2-tailed) .243 .729

Attempt to advance agendaSpearman’s rho .012 .063sig. (2-tailed) .799 .181

Damage controlSpearman’s rho .045 .013sig. (2-tailed) .348 .787

Attempt to hide somethingSpearman’s rho .029 −.003sig. (2-tailed) .544 .946

Table 4Hotelling t-test results for positive attributes.

Variable omitted T2 change Prob. level Mean

Benefits society 3466.870 0.0000 3.81Financial success 3245.675 0.0000 3.94Good expenditure 1134.529 0.0000 3.87Moves forward 803.418 0.0001 3.92

H5. Respondents will agree that public relations is the same thing as publicity.

There was no significant difference between the variable mean and the test mean. The mean response was 3.04(t(453) = −4.796, p = .400), indicating that even though respondents neither agreed or disagreed with the statement, theymay equate public relations with publicity.

To further explore of the first five hypotheses, a one-sample Hotelling t-test, which can be used for multivariate hypothesistesting, was used to compare the inter-dynamics of the five constructs. Respondents’ agreement with media constructs inthe five hypotheses were grouped to form a set of multivariate constructs to test against the population mean in order tosee which variables contribute the most to the given set of multivariate constructs (Johnson, 1998). Since this test providesinformation about the influence of each variable on the statistics of interest in a given set of test, it gave the researchers furtherinsights of which media constructs influence respondents’ constructs of public relations. A randomization test based on10,000 Monte Carlo samples was used to offset bias sometimes found in survey data. All statistics of interest were well underp = .05 (randomization probability of .0001). The attempt to advance an agenda (M = 3.53, SD = .99) and publicity (M = 3.01,SD = 1.10) produced the biggest statistical change when they are omitted from the group of variables (T2 change = 1899.149,p = .0000/T2 change 945.726, p = .0000, respectively). Other negatively defined media frames such as smoke and mirrors,damage control, and the attempt to hide something ranked lower in the test in its influence on the statistics of interest (T2change = 244.685, 159.552, and 84.380, p = .000, respectively).

H6. There will be correlations between heavier use of media and agreement with the themes found in the media stock offrames about public relations.

Heavier media use was measured in the survey as watching television more than 6 h each day and reading newspapersmore than 4 days a week. There were no statistically significant correlations between heavier media use and agreementwith the statements that public relations is damage control, an attempt to hide something, a non-substantive activity, or anattempt to advance an agenda. This hypothesis was not supported. Table 3 shows the results.

RQ1 How are positive attributes of public relations perceived?The questionnaire included items to measure positive attributes of public relations. A one-sample Hotelling t-test was

used to compare the inter-dynamics of the positive attributes (see Table 4) and to provide information about the influenceof each variable on the statistics of interest. Results indicate that the construct, public relations benefits society by providinginformation, had the largest influence (produces the biggest statistical change if omitted) in the set of variables. A random-ization test based on 10,000 Monte Carlo samples was used to offset response bias. All statistics of interest were well underp = .05 (randomization probability of .0001). When using Hotelling t-tests, the rank of the mean scores may differ from theamount of influence that a variable has within the set of variables.

RQ2 How does the term public relations rank in importance compared to other terms for functional communicationactivities of public relations?

The researchers were interested in how the term public relations would be perceived in importance compared to otherterms that are sometimes equated with public relations (Hutton, 1999), all of which are functional areas of public relations.Terms used for comparison were corporate communications, community relations, crisis communication, and corporate phi-lanthropy. Each function, including public relations, was measured on a five-point Likert scale (unimportant to important).Pair-wise comparisons of public relations and other communication functions found that public relations was considered

C. White, J. Park / Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 319–324 323

among the most important communication activities, second only to community relations (F(8,354) = 18.486, p = .001). Com-parisons using Hotelling t-test shows the relative influence of each variable (T2 change = 628.001 and 347.135, p = .000,respectively).

RQ3 Do respondents equate public relations with media relations?One of the items on the agreement scale stated, media relations is the same thing as public relations. More than half the

respondents agreed with the statement (6.6% strongly agreed; 45.9% agreed).

4.1. Post hoc analysis

Twelve percent of the sample said they worked in public relations. This higher-than-expected percentage may be becausepeople define public relations differently, and the practice encompasses so many activities. Since direct experience helpsdetermine how phenomena are defined, the researchers were interested to see if these respondents differed from the restof the sample in their agreement with the questionnaire items. Therefore, the following post hoc research question wasexamined.

RQ4 How do people who work in public relations differ from others in the sample?It was surmised that respondents who said they work in public relations might rely less on media to define public relations

and may hold a more positive perception. However, there was no significant difference in responses from people who workedin public relations and those who said they did not, using a repeated-measures ANOVA (F(4,408) = 1.106, p = .172).

5. Discussion

The results of this study move thought about media portrayal of public relations in a new direction: despite the prepon-derance of negative portrayal, the sample in the study does not concur with the negative media frames. Media discourse ispart of the process by which people construct meaning, but how much it accounts for construction of meaning may vary fordifferent issues. Although a review of the literature about media portrayal of public relations provides evidence of a con-sistently used stock of frames, the study did not find that the predominately negative media themes are reflected in publicperceptions. Respondents disagreed that public relations is damage control, an attempt to hide or disguise something, or anon-substantive activity. There was no evidence of a second-level agenda setting effect between heavier use of media andadoption of the themes found in media, suggesting that variables other than media portrayal such as personal knowledgeand experiences may affect how media frames are interpreted.

Studies have found that journalists often use the term public relations as an adjective to ascribe negative meaning tothe noun it describes, even when the term has nothing to do with the practice or profession of public relations. Despitethe consistent negative connotations, the results show that respondents regard public relations as an important activitythat benefits society by providing information and that it moves an organization forward. It may be that audiences do notassociate journalists’ use of public relations as gratuitous adjective (public relations disaster, etc.) with the actual profession.

Although the study found public relations was considered to be an important communication activity for an organization,it still was associated with tactical functions and commonly held assumptions about the practice: that public relations ispublicity, media relations, and an attempt to advance an organization’s own agenda. Publicity and media relations are the tipof the public relations iceberg – the most visible part. Many important strategic functions of public relations are less visible.However, the study found that the respondents who work in public relations held the same perceptions as the sample atlarge.

In conclusion, the study indicates that perhaps it is time to stop worrying about how the media portray public relationsand lay those studies to rest. It may be more important to think about how organizations portray public relations and howstrategic functions that benefit society can be made more visible in order to enhance the credibility of the profession.

5.1. Limitations and future study

The purpose of the study was to see how perceptions match media frames, but did not ask how respondents define publicrelations. Not all definitions, attributes, or public relations functions were included in the survey. Future studies are neededto examine more fully how public relations is defined by a general audience.

While the study found good news about perceptions of public relations and evidence that those perceptions may not benegatively affected by the preponderance of unflattering media frames, there is still an important issue to consider. Scheufele(1999) believes an important question in the study of media frames is: What factors influence the way journalists framescertain issues? The consistency of negative frames may be because journalists hold a negative view of public relations thatmay be different from perceptions held by media audiences. Even if the commonly used stock of frames about public relationsdoes not appear to have a relationship to how media audiences perceive public relations, there is still a journalist/practitionerproblem that needs to be considered.

324 C. White, J. Park / Public Relations Review 36 (2010) 319–324

References

Gerbner, G., Gross, L., & Signorielli, N. (1980). Aging with television: Images on television drama and conceptions of social reality. Journal of Communication,30, 37–47.

Henderson, J. K. (1998). Negative connotations in the use of the term “public relations” in the print. Public Relations Review, 24, 45–54.Hutton, J. G. (1999). The definition, dimension, and domain of public relations. Public Relations Review, 25, 199–214.Jo, S. (2003). The portrayal of public relations in news media. Mass Communication and Society, 6, 397–411.Johnson, D. E. (1998). Applied multivariate methods for data analysis. Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Press.Keenan, K. L. (1996). Coverage of public relations on network television news: An exploratory census of content. Public Relations Review, 22, 215–223.Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (1999). Foundations of behavioral research. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt College Publisher.Kinsky, E. & Callison, C. (2008, May). PR in the news: How a sample of network newscasts framed public relations. Presented to the International Public

Relations Research Conference, Miami, FL.Pan, Z., & Kosicki, G. M. (1993). Framing analysis: An approach to news discourse. Political Communication, 10, 55–75.Park, J. (2001). Images of “Hong Bo” (public relations) and PR in Korean newspapers. Public Relations Review, 27, 403–421.Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49, 103–122.Scheufele, D. A. (2004). Framing-effects approach: A theoretical and methodological critique. Communications: The European Journal of Communication

Research, 29, 401–428.Scrimger, J., & Richards, T. (2002). Public relations battles and wars: Journalistic clichés and the potential for conflict resolution. Public Relations Review, 29,

485–492.Spicer, C. H. (1993). Images of public relations in the print media. Journal of Public Relations Research, 3, 47–67.Van Gorp, B. (2007). The constructionists approach to framing: Bringing culture back in. Journal of Communication, 57, 60–78.White, C. & Lambert, C. A. (2006, August). Constructing a cultural definition of public relations. Presented to the Association for Education in Journalism

and Mass Communication, Public Relations Division, San Francisco.