Public Relations’ “Relationship Identity”

in Research: Enlightenment or

Illusion

W. Timothy Coombs, Ph.D.Sherry J. Holladay, Ph.D.University of Central Florida, U.S.A.2 July 2013

An Identity for PR Research

• “Relationship Identity” for general public relations research• Does it enlighten the field?

Concerns1. Translation from interpersonal communication

research2. Reality of multiple & shifting identities3. Assumption of close relationships with

stakeholders4. Organization-stakeholder relationships as

parasocial relationships

The “Relationship Identity” of PR Research

• Relationship management theory• OPR, OPRA, & MBR: dominant outcome

variable• PR’s value: the ability to cultivate & maintain

close relationships

1. Translation from Interpersonal

Communication Research• Closer to impersonal than interpersonal

relationships• More instrumental than consumatory; contrasts

with interpersonal relationships• Lack of attention to shared meaning (co-

construction)

2. Multiple Identities

• Close relationships built on shared identity with organization • Identities are fragmented, multiple, & fluid for

most people• Close relationships with organizations are the

exception rather than the rule

3. Close Relationship Emphasis

• Strong relationships are tied to other desired outcomes for organizations• Rewards for stakeholders are unclear• Strong relational commitment may harm

stakeholders

A strong organization-public relationship may preclude people from recognizing the problems in the relationship and may prevent them from seeking other, more beneficial, relationships.

4. Parasocial Interactions

• Mass Com: viewers develop friendships & a sense of intimacy with personalities/characters they see regularly on television• Perception of interaction & a relationship• Reality is very one-sided• Can be facilitated through pseudo-interactions

Parasocial Relationships• Social media primarily provide pseudo-

interactions• Stakeholders post comments• Question-response

• False notion that people “become part of the conversation”

Illusion over Enlightenment• Distorted metaphor; monetizing relationships

is true emphasis• Neglect to understand weak ties—how the

majority of stakeholders relate to organizations• Hyped interactive nature of social media fuels

parasocial interaction (one-sided relationships)

Conclusion• Claiming stakeholder-organization relationships

are similar to interpersonal relationships is problematic• Describing relationships as parasocial interactions

is generally more accurate & potentially informative• True nature of relationships• Honest recognition of one-sided nature• Potential insights from this view of relationship