Problem Solving and Communicative Action

Journal of Communication ISSN 0021-9916

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Problem Solving and Communicative Action:

A Situational Theory of Problem Solving

Jeong-Nam Kim1 & James E. Grunig2

1 Department of Communication, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2098, USA

2 Department of Communication, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742-7635, USA

This article introduces the situational theory of problem solving (theory of problem

solving) as an extended and generalized version of the situational theory of publics (theory

of publics). The theory of problem solving introduces a new concept, communicative

action in problem solving, as its dependent variable. To explain communicative action,

the theory of problem solving refines the independent variables of the theory of publics:

problem recognition, constraint recognition, involvement recognition, and referent criterion.

Finally, it introduces a new variable: situational motivation in problem solving. The

new motivational variable mediates the effects of antecedent perceptual variables on

communicative behavior. We report the supporting evidence for theoretical propositions of

the new theory based on structural equation modeling (SEM) testing using survey data.

doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01529.x

‘‘All life is problem solving’’ (Popper, 1999).

The situational theory of publics (theory of publics) has explained when and why

individuals become active in communication behaviors such as information seeking

(Grunig, 2003). Grunig (1966, 1989) developed the situational theory of publics as a

theory of individual communication behavior and decision making. The theory later

moved to a collective level of analysis as the concepts in the individual-level theory

were used to explain and identify who are publics of organizations, as that term is

used in public relations (Grunig, 1997).

The situational theory of publics refined, improved, and formalized two classic

theories of publics and public opinion, those of Dewey (1927) and Blumer (1966).

According to Dewey and Blumer, publics are critical components of the democratic

process that recognize problems that affect them and organize and act similarly to

resolve those problems. Because the situational theory defines and identifies publics

(Grunig, 2003), it has advanced our understanding of the opinions of publics and the

social processes created by their behaviors.

Corresponding author: Jeong-Nam Kim; e-mail: [email protected]

120 Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 120–149 © 2011 International Communication Association

J.-N. Kim & J. E. Grunig Situational Theory of Problem Solving

The theory of publics has three variables that explain and predict communication

behavior (problem recognition, level of involvement, and constraint recognition) and

two dependent variables that describe active and passive communication behavior in

acquiring information (information seeking and attending).1 A person who perceives

a problem, a connection to it, and few obstacles to doing something about it is likely to

seek and attend to information about the problem (Figure 1). Because the situational

Communicative

Action in

Problem

Solving

H1: +

H2: - H5: + Situational

Motivation

in Problem

Solving

H3: +

H4: +

Problem

Recognition

Constraint

Recognition

Referent

Criterion

Involvement

Recognition

Information

Forefending

Information

Attending

Information

Seeking

Information

Sharing

Information

Forwarding

Information

Permitting

+

+

+ +

+ +

Communicative Behavior

in Problem Solving

Situational

Motivation

in Problem

Solving

Situational Antecedents:

Perceptual &

Cognitive Frame

in Problem Solving

Information Selection Information Transmission Information Acquisition

+

-

+

Problem

Recognition

Constraint

Recognition

Level of

Involvement

Information

Processing

Information

Seeking

Information Acquisition

+

+

-

Situational Theory of Publics

Internal Inquiring Stage

(Knowledge Activation)

External Inquiring Stage

(Knowledge Action)

Individual Effectuating Stage

(Individual Solution Application )

Collective Effectuating Stage

(Collective Solution Application )

Situational Motivation in Problem Solving

= f(PR, IR, CR | RC)

Information

Selection

Information

Transmission

Information

Acquisition

Situational Theory of Publics

Situational Theory of Problem Solving

Situational Communicant Activeness in Problem Solving

Problem

Recognition

Active Public Activist Public

IS Top IT Top

IA Top

Situational Theory of Problem Solving

Figure 1 Situational theory of publics and situational theory of problem solving.

Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 120–149 © 2011 International Communication Association 121

Situational Theory of Problem Solving J.-N. Kim & J. E. Grunig

theory has the power to explain and predict who is most likely to communicate

actively on social or individual problems, it has been used heavily by both public

relations theorists and practitioners (Aldoory & Sha, 2006).

The most important lesson from the situational theory is that information

consumption becomes systematic when people find that information matches their

subjective life problems (Grunig, 1997). People selectively invest their communicative

and cognitive resources in a problem only when they perceive the effort to be necessary

and relevant. For that reason, the theory of publics shows why blind pursuit of a

maximum number of people in a general public—as opposed to specific publics

as defined by the theory—fails. The situational theory of publics, therefore, leads

communication practitioners to distinguish active segments of a population (i.e.,

active or aware publics) from less active ones (i.e., latent publics or nonpublics) to

avoid cost-ineffective communication (e.g., mass-oriented campaigns; Grunig, 1989;

Grunig & Hunt, 1984). Furthermore, it has provided a critical means of building a

body of knowledge relevant to the strategic management of public relations, such as

how to identify and interact with strategic publics in and around an organization

(e.g., Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2002).

However, a good theory never stagnates (Kruglanski, 2006); the situational

theory has continuously evolved to increase its theoretical power and practical utility

(Grunig, 1997). In this article, we identify several areas that were not addressed

in the original situational theory and propose a more general theory. First, the

theory of publics adopted a narrow conceptualization of active communication

behaviors. It used only information acquisition (information seeking or attending) to

describe an active public. However, if we observe an actively communicating public,

we soon realize that its members engage not only in active information seeking

but also in active information sharing and selecting. In problem solving, selecting

certain information over other information and sharing it with others facilitates

problem solving because such information behaviors can reproduce similar problem

perceptions among people and better mobilize necessary attention to and resources

for dealing with the problem (Chwe, 2001; Gamson, 1992). Second, the concept

of a referent criterion was included in early versions of the situational theory and

then dropped because it failed to predict information seeking and attending (Grunig,

1997). However, several researchers have called attention to the conceptual and

practical benefits of the referent criterion in explaining and classifying the behaviors

of publics (Kim, Ni, & Sha, 2008; Sriramesh, Moghan, & Wei, 2007). We also consider

the utility of the concept and redefine and reinstate it into the situational theory. In

doing so, we test the enhanced predictive power of the referent criterion and discuss

the conceptual utility of the variable.

Third, in its original formulation, the theory of publics only considered perceptual

variables as causal antecedents to communication behavior. Although preserving this

theoretical parsimony is beneficial, it is interesting to test whether there is a more

immediate antecedent variable to communicative action. One promising candidate

variable is a motivational variable (Kruglanski, 1996). Social psychological theorists

122 Journal of Communication 61 (2011) 120–149 © 2011 International Communication Association