the kindness of strangers: predictor variables in a public information campaign

Public Relations Review, 19(4):367-384 Copyright 0 1993 by JAI Press Inc.

ISSN: 0363-8111 All tights of reproduction in any form reserved.

John A. Ledingham

The IGrdness of Strangers: Predictor Variables in a Public Information Campaign

ABSTRACT: A telephone survey of 501 randomly-selected respondents supports the viewpoint of dependency theory that suggests that communication effects are dependent on the needs of the individual attending to the communication sources. The research also indicates that a mix of mediated and interpersonal communication can motivate behavior in a public information campaign, particularly when targeted to predisposed audience segments.

Further, the study supports Grunig and Ipes’ view of the roles of mass and interpersonal communication and ChaEee’s “parallel sources” perspective. The findings also indicate communication can serve as a link between attitudes and behavior. And, the results suggest that easily obtainable demographics often are as good or better a predictor of behavior as attitudes, knowledge or communication exposure. The research also produced a brief list of variables that can be used to segment audience members predisposed to charitable giving.

Dr. Ledingham is a consultant in Columbus, Ohio, and an adjunct faculty member at Capital University in Columbus.

Development is one of the seven major areas of Public Relations, and in most cases “development” involves fimd raising.’ A number of factors have impacted the practice of development in recent years. Computer technology has made it relatively simple to compile lists, segment audiences and

Winter 1993 367

Public Relations Review

target specially-tailored messages to significant publics. While some traditional sources of funding for philanthropic organizations have declined,2 there has been an increased focus within the profession on strategic planning to generate bottom-line results.3

As the practice of development changed, so has the practitioner. Today’s development director has progressed from a communication facilitator to a problem-solving process facilitator who recognizes the importance of reaching significant publics and gaining their support.

Many in development raise funds for philanthropic organizations. A common technique is to conduct a public information campaign in which mass media appeals are generated through public service announcements (PSAs) and news coverage along with other activities more inter-personal in nature.5

This report focuses on the role of mass media and interpersonal communication vvithin public information campaigns. It also assesses the relative impact ofcommuni- cation and other factors which can influence response to campaign messages from a philanthropic organization. And, it attempts to explain, in part, why audience members respond to some messages and not others.

LITERATURE OF PUBLIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGNS

Research into public information campaigns can be traced to 1947 and Hyman and Sheatsley’s analysis as to why some information campaigns fail.6 Their findings suggest that media messages alone lack the ability to bring about substantial change. Instead, Hyman and Sheatsley posited, the major effect of mediated messages in a campaign environment is to reinforce existing attitudes and predispositions.

In support of their “limited effects” perspective, Hyman and Sheatsley contended people seek out facts which support their already-formed attitudes; different groups interpret the same information differently (to support pre-existing positions); psy- chological barriers exist that can also preclude information adoption; and, increases in information flow do not necessarily produce attitudinal change in audience

members.7 The limited effects perspective was supported by Rauer. He concluded that views

of the public as a monolithic mass able to be manipulated by media were inconsistent with behavior observed in the field.8 Subsequent research by Mendelsohn suggested that an information campaign may lead to an increase in knowledge and in that way, foster changes in attitude and behavior.’

Not all research associated with public information campaigns supports the limited effects view. After analyzing an Advrertising Council’s campaign against crime, O’Keefe claimed the results “go far in refuting many of the hypothesis and assump- tions concerning campaign efficacy posed (by limited effects theory). . . and tend to support vievvs of the media (as) having potential for more substantial persuasive effects.“”

368 Vol. 19, No. 4

The Kindness of Strangprs: Predictor Variables in a Public Information Campaign

Others see the persuasive power of a public information campaign grounded in the use of both mass media and interpersonal communication. For example, Grunig and Ipes’ analysis of a campaign against drunk driving led them to conclude mass media alone are seldom sufficient to bring about behavioral change. They contended, however, that communication campaigns can help to alter behavior “if the person also receives interpersonal support from friends or from . . . groups.“’ 1

According to Grunig and Ipes, the principal fimction of mediated messages in a public information campaign is to place the problem on an individual’s agenda. To

move beyond agenda setting and act as a stimulant to behavior, they argued, mass media “must be supplemented by.. . interpersonal ~upport.“‘~

Grunig and Ipes view of mass media and interpersonal communication as partners in a campaign is reinforced by Chaffee’s notion of both forms as “parallel sources.” Chaffee concluded that “media and personal communication are not rivals or substitutes for one another, but. . . offer parallel sources of information and opinion that one might consult on a given issue. Chaffee also suggested that media and interpersonal communication are “reciprocally stimulating.” “One direct effect of mass communication,” he contended, “is to increase interpersonal communication; and one major motivation for using mass media is to prepare for face-to-face discussion.“‘3

Dervin’s inquiry into public information campaigns also supports the proposition that communication works best when both mass and interpersonal forms are involved. She notes: “Campaign messages work best only when they are supportive of other activities such as interpersonal network stratedies.“‘4 Dervin stresses the need for a thorough understanding of audiences, obtained-through a variety of research strategies. She contends that knowledge of an audience, combined with a relevant message, can produce substantial results.‘”

Some understanding of the audience for charitable campaigns comes from professional research organizations. l6 Yankelovich, Skelly and White, for example, found people aged 34 to 64 are most likely to contribute to a philanthropic organization and that those aged 50 to 64 years comprise the largest segment of contributors. Other demographic characteristics-a college education, an annual income of$50,000 or more, marriage and a professional occupation-were also reported as indicators of giving behavior. The research firm also found a majority of respondents feel funds raised in a community are best used to help people in that community.”

Another study questioned the value of information in motivating charitable giving. The research found most interviewees have little awareness of the fimding sources of philanthropic agencies and knowledge of agency services was described as “virtually non-existent.” This report concluded that social pressure affects frequency and amount of giving and that “impersonal forms of solicitation such as television commercials and newspaper advertisements.. . have little effect on contributions (while) the more personal employer and supervisor solicitations are very effective.“18

However, focus group research conducted for the United Way (UW) found the opposite. Contributors, according to this research, have a better understanding and Bveatev knowledge of charitable agencies than non-contributors. The report claims awareness comes through four sources: the workplace, a personal tragedy, volunteer

Winter 1993 369


work and Tom advertising. The study also claimed contributors to a charity want to know how funds are disbursed and that misconceptions exist concerning the administrative costs associated with fi.mdraising.‘9

Two issues that have been reported focus specifically on the UW. A report in the Wall Street Journal claimed that 15% of employees surveyed feel coerced into contributing to UW. 2o Another report contended many employees feel the UW monopolizes contributions to charitable organizations.2’

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

This study was conducted with the cooperation of the UW in a Midwest community. The author’s interest centers around the relative role of mass and interpersonal communication in a public information campaign, particularly with regard to Chaffee’s “parallel sources” perspective, and the relative influence of communication and other variables. The theoretical framework for the study is dependency theory, a position that holds that communication effects are dependent, at least in part, on the needs of the individual attending to the communication sources.22

For its part, the UW hoped the results would provide insights for developing campaign strategies. For example, it was thought the research might lead to development of a brief measurement instrument that could predict audience behavior without subjecting respondents to the tedium of a more lengthy questionnaire.

Overall, it was hoped the results would be helpful to Public Relations practitioners in the manner described by Hyman and Sheatsley some 45 years ago:

Surveys can inform the.. . director . . . of attitudes on any public issue.. . (of) the major factors affecting public opinion.. .and the relative influence of these various factors in determining attitudes. They can tell to what extent information has reached the public and how far it has changed existing opinions. They can also tell what information is still needed and what aspects of it must be stressed in order to reach the unexposed or unsympathetic groups.23

BACKGROUND

The LW serves as an “umbrella” agency, collecting funds for some 34 community organizations and disbursing those funds among the supported agencies. UW gathers funds primarily through payroll deductions approved by contributors and generally receives the cooperation of area industries and businesses. Many major companies in the area have an employee active as a UW volunteer.

The UW employs public service announcements (PSAs), aired free on local broadcast and cable outlets, posters in area businesses and industries, and a network

370 Vol. 19, No. 4

The Kindnerc of Strangers: Predictor Variables in a Public Information Campaign

of volunteers who conduct meetings and show a UW film at area companies. In cooperating companies, employees are solicited to contribute their “fair share” in a letter or memo from a colleague or employment superior and are often invited to attend a UW group meeting at the workplace. Companies are urged to seek contributions from 100% of their work force.

METHOD

The scholarly literature and reported field research served as the basis for development of a survey questionnaire concerning contributing, in general, and contributing to the UW, specifically. A series of questions were con- structed to identify the following:

0 At&t&s held by audience members toward chantable agencies and the act of giving including the UW, payroll deductions, government

aid, the UW “fair share” concept, and other issues;

l Kmwfedge of the activities, administrative costs and disbursement policies of charitable organizations, perceived likelihood someone they know will require aid li-om a charitable organization, UW administrative costs and other knowledge-based questions;

l Communication exposures, including mediated messages and interpersonal contact, UW public service announcements, a UW film, or a solicitation memorandum or letter; and,

l Demographic characteristics, including age, gender, income, education, marital status, size of workforce and union membership.

Respondents were also asked if they had contributed to a charitable organization within the past year and, specifically, if they had contributed to the UW,

The sample frame was the area telephone directory with numbers selected using

the nth selection strategy. A screening procedure limited the survey to individuals employed 30 or more hours each week. In this manner, some 501 usable telephone interviews were completed over a two-week period.

FINDINGS

The findings of the study suggest that interpersonal and mediated messages act as parallel sources of information for audience members.

Moreover, mass media messages are found to serve an awareness or agenda-setting function, but in the absence of supportive interpersonal communication, the ability of mediated messages to compel behavior is lessened. Attitudes, knowledge and

winter 1993 371

Public Relations Revitrw

demographic characteristics were also identified as differential behavioral predictors. And, the needs of audience members appear paramount in their response to communication messages.

These findings were generated by a series of analyses. After the data were entered for computer analysis, overall frequencies were generated for the sample population and for four subgroups: Norz-(;ivers, ALL Givers, UWGivers, and Givers to a charitable agcnc!’ other than UW (“Other Giveus”).

The results (see Table 1) reveal an almost equal split behveen males and females \\,ith an avcragc age of about 39 years. Most arc married and most have at least a high school education, lvith a median annual income in the $20,000-$30,0000 bracket. About half are part of a workforce of more than 100 employees, but more than two- thirds are not union members. Nearly 90 percent said they contributed to a charity \\,ithin the past year, and 70 per cent said they contributed to the UW.

Respondents generally agreed that contributors should be able to earmark an intended recipient for their contribution, that fi.md disbursement is based on need and the UW should not fund controversial agencies such as Planned Parenthood. Givers and non-givers alike agreed there is too much pressure from management to contribute to the UW. And, givers and non-givers in roughly equal proportions see large companies as the UW’s primary source of funds.

The results support the demographic findings of Yankclovich, Skelly and White and others. Non-givers tend to be younger, single, less educated and likely to earn less than their older counterparts. They arc also less likely to claim union membership and more likely to be part of a smaller kvorkforcc.

Moreover, the reports indicate non-givers arc less enchanted with UW, less enamored of the “fair share” _ concept and less convinced than their counterparts of the efficiency of the payroll deduct concept. They arc also more likely to see responsibility for helping the needy as “government’s” role, rather than that of the community. Non-givers arc less likely to know someone \vho is receiving help from a UFV agency and less certain that charitable funds collected in the community

should stay in the community. In short, they see their needs as different from those

of the society represented by UW. It is in the area of communication exposure, holvevcr, that the most interesting

diff‘rrences are found. Those differences are minimal regarding mass media exposure. Givers arc only somewhat more likely to recall UW televised PSAs, a UW billboard, a

LJY nc\vspaper ad or radio message, and to have viewed a UW film at work than

non-givers. HoLvever, \\,ith regard to interpersonal and quasi-interpersonal communication,

the differences are dramatic. UIYJjvers aye almost thee times as LikeJ?I to have attended a Ulv’group meeting at work. And, they are morpe than twice as like[tl to have received a solicitatiolz Letter oy memo at their place of enzployment.

The variables were then crosstabulated \j,ith tirst “contributed” and then “contributed to UW” as dependent variables. Crosstabulation with “contributed” as the dependent variable produced six instances of cell case distrubtions that were statistically significant. (see Table 2) Communication variables are highlighted.

Crosstabulating “Contributed to UW” produced similar results (see Table 3).

372 Vol. 19. No. 4

77~ Kindnerc of StranApvs: Predictor Variables in a Public Information Campaign

TABLE 1

Comparisons of Frequencies Overall and for Four Subgroups

All UW Other All NO?l- Respondents Jivevs Bivers Bivevs @aen

(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Age groups:

29 and younger 30-39 years of age 4049 years of age 50-59 years of age 60 and older

Annual income levels:

Less than $10,000

$10,000-$19,999 S20,000-$29,999 S30,000-$39,999 $40,000-$49,999

$50,000 & more No response

Education levels:

Some high school High school graduate

Some college College graduate Graduate work

Marital status:

Married Divorced

Separated Widowed

Never married

Size of workforce:

Less than 25 26-50 51-100 More than 100

Member of labor union:

Gender:

Male Female

27.1 22.0 33.9 25.3 51.7 29.1 29.2 29.8 29.3 27.6 22.1 21.7 19.4 21.0 10.3 16.7 21.1 10.5 18.3 5.2 4.5 6.0 6.5 6.1 5.2

11.8 7.2 18.1 8.6 19.2 16.0 22.6 18.1

21.2 23.0 19.4 21.9

19.6 21.7 19.4 21.0

8.2 11.0 4.8 9.3 7.4 8.2 8.1 8.1

12.8 12.9 13.7 13.1

9.8 10.1 7.3 9.3 13.8 42.3 39.3 43.5 40.6 55.2 22.6 24.5 19.4 23.0 19.0 14.8 16.0 14.5 15.6 8.6 10.6 10.1 15.3 11.5 3.4

69.8 74.5 68.5 72.7 47.4 10.8 11.9 8.9 11.1 8.8

.6 0.0 .8 .2 3.5 2.4 2.8 .8 2.3 3.5

16.4 10.7 21.0 13.8 36.8

31.0 11.4

8.8 48.8

20.4

50.4 46.0 57.3 49.1 60.3 49.6 54.0 42.7 50.9 39.7

36.2 27.6 15.5

8.6

1.7 10.3

24.6 41.1 29.4 43.1 9.8 13.7 10.9 15.5 8.8 5.6 7.9 15.5

56.8 39.5 51.8 25.9

22.1 21.0 21.7 10.3

Winter 1993 373


TABLE 1 (continued)


All UW Other ALL Non- Respondents &ers Bivers Bivers Bivers

(%) (%) @) (%) (x)

“Most Uw money donated by large businesses.”

“Givers should be able to decide who gets funds.”

“UW is efficient way to collect for many agencies.”

“WV funds agencies that make community better for all.”

“Too much pressure from management to give to UW.”

“UW distributes funds agencies based on need.”

“No one I know likely to use any of the UW agencies.”

“UW shouldn’t fund organizations such as Planned Parenthood.”

“Money collected by UW remains in our community.”

“Nowadays, agencies like UW are not as useful as in the past.”

“There are too many organizations seeking funds.”

“Everyone should give their fair share.”

“Payroll deduct is an efficient way to contribute.”

“Very little of what is contributed goes to help those who need it.”

“Charities compete with one another for the same money.”

“Gov’t should provide all help for those in need.”

Child welfare services Services for the elderly Rehabilitation services for

the handicapped Services for the poor/needy Family counseling services

54.8 52.9 54.8 53.2 67.2

71.5 79.8 83.8 71.0 84.5

86.4 92.8 83.8 71.0 84.5

86.2 91.8 78.2 88.1 71.5

45.1 44.0 48.4 45.1 44.9

58.9 62.3 50.0 58.7 60.3

33.2 29.8 34.7 31.4 46.6

25.6 22.6 31.5 25.0 29.3

63.6 66.0 61.3 64.7 55.2

27.4 21.7 38.7 26.4 34.5

52.1 50.9 50.8 51.0 60.3 77.2 80.9 77.4 79.9 56.9

51.7 58.8 41.9 54.0 34.5

58.4 55.6 58.8 57.3 67.2

80.8 81.8 79.9 81.3 77.6

29.4 25.4 31.7 27.2 46.5

57.1 72.9

(% rating it important)

57.2 54.8 56.4 72.6 70.2 72.0

62.1 79.3

50.1 50.9 42.7 49.4 55.2

30.3 29.6 33.9 30.7 27.6 17.9 19.2 12.9 17.4 15.5

(% agreeing with statement)

374 Vol. 19.No.4

7%e Kindness of Strangers: Predictor Variables in a Public Information Campaign

TABLE 1 (continued)


All UW Other All Non- Respondents Bivevs Jivers Bivers Bivevs

(%) 0) (%) (%) (%)

(% rating it important)

Drug/alcohol treatment 40.3 37.7 45.2 40.0 Health-related services 28.9 28.3 37.1 30.7 Contrbtd to charity in 12 past months 88.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 Contrbtd to UW in past year 71.9 100.0 00.0 71.9

(% aflreeing with statement)

The following are associated with the Uw:

American Cancer Society 46.7 44.7

Big Brother/Big Sisters 68.9 69.5

Mental Health Assoc. 65.1 68.2

Rehabilitation Center 71.1 73.3

2nd Chance Halfivay Home 39.5 39.3

Am. Heart Assoc. 53.1 51.6

Alcoholic Anonymous 36.5 37.4

Lukemia Society 42.5 38.4

March of Dimes 48.7 41.8

Easter Seals 48.3 41.8

Salvation Army 48.5 46.2

Red Cross 54.5 53.3

Recall seeing or hearing about the UW via: A group meeting at work 37.5 48.7 Letter or memo at work 38.1 46.9

UW film 18.2 22.0

Newspaper ad 43.3 44.0

Radio 43.7 45.9 A billboard 39.1 39.6 Television 32.7 30.2

Out of every $1 .OO given to UW, how much goes to agencies 52.4 55.0

49.2 45.8 53.4 67.7 58.8 69.0 60.5 65.9 58.6 68.5 71.8 65.5 39.5 39.3 41.4 54.8 52.4 58.6 33.1 36.1 39.7 45.2 49.2 60.3 60.5 47.0 62.1 59.7 46.7 60.3 46.8 46.3 39.7 54.0 54.9 51.7

18.5 40.2 17.2 24.2 40.4 20.7 10.5 18.7 13.8 45.2 44.2 36.2 41.1 44.5 37.9 41.9 40.2 31.0 37.9 32.5 34.5

50.7 53.8 42.3

43.1 15.5 00.0 00.0

As seen, the differences generated by three variables are statistically significant for both “contributed” and “contribtited to UW.” They are:

l workplace size

l attendence at a UW~roup meeting, and

l receipt of a solicitation memo

Wbltcr 1993 375

Pddic Relations Review

TABLE 2

Statistically Significant Variables with “Contributed” as the Dependent Variable

Size of place of employment x2 = 14.51427; df = 3;

Health-related services x2 = 5.03376; df = 1

mV gets most from big companies X2 = 9.20858; df = 4

UWfl~oup meeting x2 = 10.55360; df = 1

VW letter QY nzevno at work x2 = 7.63648; df = 1

Education x2 = 8.84908; df = 4

0.0023

0.0249

0.0561

0.0012

0.0057

0.0550

Two are communication variables. The presence of the third, “workplace size,” is

due to the fact larger companies are much more likely to host a UW meeting, to send letters or memos of solicitation and to show a UW film because the UW strategy is to concentrate its efforts where it can reach the greatest number of people.

The data were fiu-ther analyzed to identify which variables were associated with the behavior of giving. To do so, the variables were grouped into four exclusive sets (Attitude, Knowledge, Demographics and Communication) and each set was sub- jected to the discriminate procedure.

Discriminate function analysis is a convenient procedure when seeking to identify associations between a number of independent variables and a dependent variable. In essence, discriminate f?mction analysis is a procedure for predicting the correct classification of cases, defined by the criterion variable, when the correct classification is known. The sets of variables are measured in terms of their ability to correctly predict classification, and this ability is expressed as a percentage of the total number of cases correctly classified.

In other words, if only the attitude variables were known, how accurately could we predict the behavior of those in the sample? What if only the knowledge vati-

TABLE 3

Statistically Significant Variables with “Contributed to UW” as the Dependent Variable

Size of place of employment

UW distributes funds based on need

Funds collected from community

x2 = 15.84291; df = 3; 0.0012

x2 = 9.66318; df = 4 0.0465

stay in community x2 = 13.10703; df= 4 0.0108

UWg-oup meetin& X2 = 32.56917; df = 1 0.0000

UW letter OT memo at work x2 = 18.08420; df = 1 0.0000

UWfiLrn at work X2 = 7.03676; df = 1 0.0080

Age x2 = 10.75046; df = 4 0.0295

Gender x2 = 4.04862; df = 1 0.0442

376 Vol. 19, No. 4

7he Kindness of Strangers: Predictor Variables in a Public Information Campaign

ables were known? Or the communication variables? Or only the demographic

variables? The importance of the results is evident: In the hands of a skilled practitioner, the

ability to predict behavior could contribute to effective campaign strategy. On a theoretical level, the predictive power of the different sets of variables might provide insight into the relationships behveen behavior and knowledge, behavior and attitudes, behavior and demographics, or behavior and communication.

TABLE 4

Classification of cases with “Contributed” as the criterion variable

Attitudinal variables:

Actual Gvoup

Group 1

Yes Group 2

No

Knowledge variables:

Actual Group

Group 1 Yes

Group 2

No

Communication variables:

Actual Group

Group 1 Yes

Group 2

No

Demographic variables:

Actrtal Group

Group 1

Yes Group 2

No

No. Predicted Group Membership of Cases I 2

442 314 128 71.0% 29.0%

58 19 39 32.8% 67.2%

Percent of “grouped” cases correctly classified: 70.5%

No. Predicted Group Membership of Cases 1 2

443 279 164 63.0% 37.0%

58 21 37 36.2% 63.8%



443 226 217 51.0% 49.0%

58 14 44 24.1% 75.9%



440 324 116 74.5% 26.4%

58 21 37 26.3% 73.7%


w1ntcr 1993 377


TABLE 5

Classification of cases with “Contributed to UW” as the criterion variable

Attitudinal variables:

Actual Group

Group: Yes 1 Yes

Group: No 2

Ungrouped

Knowledge variables:

Actual Group

Group: Yes 1 Yes

Group: No 2

Ungrouped

Communication variables:

Actual Gro up

Group: Yes 1 Yes

Group: No 2

Ungrouped

Demographic variables:

Actual Group

Group: Yes 1 Yes

Group: No 2

Ungrouped

NO. Predicted Group Membership of Cases I 2

318 329 89 72.0% 28.0%

123 49 74 39.8% 60.2%

59 25 34 42.4% 57.6%


No. Predicted Group Membership of Cases I 2

318 187 131 58.8% 41.2%

124 58 66 46.8% 53.2%

59 33 26 55.9% 44.1%


NO. Predicted Group Membership of Cases 1 2

318 177 144 55.7% 44.3%

124 32 92 25.8% 74.2%

59 15 44 25.4% 74.6%


NO. Predicted Group Membership of Cases I 2

315 197 118 62.5% 37.5%

124 59 55 47.6% 52.4%

58 21 37 36.2% 63.8%


378 Vol. 19, No. 4

771-e Kindness of Strangers: Predictor Variables in a Public Information Campaign

In fact, the procedure indicated that with “contributed” as the criterion variable,

the set of demographic variables was the best predictor, accurate in 73.6% of the cases (see Table 4). This was followed by attitudes (70.5%), knowledge (53.9%) and then

communication (53.89%). However, when “contributed to UW” was used as the criterion variable the

comparative predictive power changed considerably (see Table 5). Attitude emerged as the leading predicter (68.7%), followed by communication (60.9%), demographics (59.6%) and then knowledge (57.2%). In the process, 15 variables were identified as statistically significant.

Another analysis was then carried out in an effort to develop a brief instrument to predict giving behavior. The fifteen statistically significant variables were combined into one “super set” (see Table 6). Six of the variables concerned attitude, while five were about demographics and three were communication related (and all of those were interpersonal in nature). Only one variable addressed knowledge. Discriminate function analysis was then conducted to determine the predictive power of the

“super set.” The “super set” was able to correctly predict classification of 76.35% of the cases

with “contributed” as the criterion variable (see Table 8). In other words, the “super set” was only a slightly better predictor (by 2.71%) than simple demographics (73.64%).

TABLE 6

Statistically Significant Variables of the “Super Set”

Wilk’s Lambda F

Every should give “fair share”

Payroll deduct is efficient way

UW is efficient way to collect funds

Contrib. should earmark $ given

UW makes community better for all

UW gets most $ from big companies

No one I know uses UW

UW group meeting at work

Letter or memo at work

UW film at work

Age

Education

Marital status

Income

Gender

0.96359 18.82

0.98581 7.17

0.90482 45.18

0.97102 14.86

0.97344 13.59

0.98846 5.82

0.99137 4.34

0.97702 11.73

0.98313 8.56

0.98241 7.87

0.97232 14.09

0.98464 7.73

0.9545 1 23.59

0.96883 15.90

0.98978 4.51

Significance

0.0000

0.0077

0.0000

0.0001

0.0003

0.0162

0.0377

0.0007

0.0036

0.0052

0.0002

0.0056

0.0000

0.1341

0.0342

Winter 1993 379


TABLE 7

Classification of cases of “Super Set”

Contributed:

Group: Yes

Actual Group

1

Group: No 2

Contributed to Uw:

Actual Group

Group: Yes 1

Group: No 2

Ungrouped cases

NO. Predicted Group Membership of Cases 1 2

442 338 104 76.5% 23.5%

57 14 43 24.5% 75.4%


No. Predicted Group Membership of Cuses 1 2

315 239 76 75.9% 24.1%

124 39 85 31.5% 58.5%

58 17 41 29.3% 70.7%


DISCUSSION

As noted earlier, it was hoped this study would provide insight for practitioners, shed light on the comparative roles of mass and interpersonal communication in a public information campaign, assess the comparative impact of communication and other variables on the behavior of giving and help to explain why message recipients react to some messages and not others. In that regard, the results are help&l.

The portrait of non-givers that emerges from this study depicts a population segment less involved with and less interested in the society that is reality for older, more established persons who have-by virtue of parenthood, probable home ownership and other factors-a higher stake in the community.

Clearly, the non-givers see little in the UW’s activities that meets their needs. And, their age does not predispose them to think about heart disease, cancer and many of the other concerns that may be in the minds of their older counterparts.

With regard to campaign planning, the results suggest targeting specially tailored campaign messages to significant publics; older, married, parents who work in larger organizations and earn an annual household income of $50,000 or more.

On a theoretical level, the reaction of audience members supports the viewpoint of dependency theory. As noted, that perspective posits that communication effects are dependent on the needs of the individual attending to the communication sources.

380 Vol. 19, No. 4

77x Kindness of Stiangers: Predictor Variables in a Public Information Campaign

Clearly, those younger, less affluent respondents do not perceive of the UW as an organization that will fulfill their needs and they do not feel linked to the needs addressed by the UW. In short, the campaign was not salient for this population

segment. Concerning the relative roles of mass mediated and interpersonal communication,

the research literature indicates we should find both mass and interpersonal at work when people contribute. The results support that expectation. The analysis revealed minimal differences between givers and non-givers with regard to mass media forms (the UW television, radio, newspaper and billboard advertisements and a UW film). However, the differences between givers and non-givers were dramatic with regard to interpersonal communication (a group meeting at work” and “a UW letter or

memo”). The results also suggest different communication forms play different roles.

Mediated messages seem to act as agenda setters in this arena, as they have been found to function in other circumstances from political communication to natural

disaster warnings. 24 However, it app ears those mediated messages need to be supplemented by interpersonal communication in order to motivate behavior.

This may explain, in part, why so many non-givers are found in the smaller workplaces. Most smaller companies simply do not have on-site UW meetings and are less likely to urge giving to the UW through a personal letter or memo because UW strategy focuses on larger companies. Workers in smaller companies may gain awareness of the campaign from mass media, but are not likely to be the subject of a solicitation memo or asked to attend a UW meeting. In the absence of interpersonal communication, they are not motivated to act.

The results also support Chaffee’s notion of mass and interpersonal communication as “parallel sources” and the propositions of Grunig and Ipes, and Dervin concerning the need for both mass media and interpersonal communication to motivate behavior. This should encourage campaign strategists who use a mix of mass mediated and interpersonal communication.

With regard to the predictive power of the four sets of variables, it is interesting that demographics emerged as the leading predictor set for “contributing” in general, and was only slightly less powerful than the “super set.” Demographics provide a view of where one is in life. Apparently, this “life position” is a strong indicator of how one feels about the kind of society reflected by organizations such as the UW. That finding is potentially very valuable for campaign strategists since those demographic descriptors are generally available from numerous sources at little or no cost.

Although communication was not a strong predictor of non-specific giving, it emerged as a better predictor than knowledge and demographics when predicting

@vin.. to the UWspecifically. This makes perfectly good sense and again underscores the importance of utilizing

both mass and interpersonal communication. Most non-users were exposed only to the mediated messages and, most probably, only to UW messages (since that organization operates as the umbrella agency for fimd raising for most other health-

Winter 1993 381


related charitable groups). As noted earlier, messages concerning the UW were probably effective as agenda setters. However, when the mass mediated messages were augmented by interpersonal ones, as was the case in companies with larger workforces, the frequency of giving increased.

Those results support Grunig and Ipes’ contention that media campaigns can help motivate behavior “if the person also receives interpersonal support from friends or

from.. . groups.” It is also interesting that attitudes were a considerably more powerful predictor

than knowledge with regard to giving to the UW. There is a certain sense to this. Attitudes are not isolated bits and pieces of facts, as knowledge sometimes is. Bather, attitudes may be seen as representing the accumulation of all our experiences; what Schramm refers to as our “frame of reference.”

And it is interesting that, of the 15 variables in the “super set,” six were attitudinal, while only one related to knowledge.

However, attitudes alone are often insufficient to motivate behavior. As Mendelsohn noted, public information campaigns may lead to an increase in knowledge, which may, in turn, affect attitudes and, perhaps, behavior. What this study seems to indicate is that the link between attitudes and behavior is tenuous, as many scholars

have noted. But what it also suggests is that a mix of mass media and interpersonal communication can serve as the linkage that turns attitude into action.

It was also hoped the research might serve as the basis for developing a relatively brief instrument that could predict giving behavior. In fact, the 15-variable set was accurate in 70 to 75 percent of the cases, slightly better than any of the other four sets of variables. Using a questionnaire based on the 15 variables could identify audience segments predisposed to charitable giving without the need to subject respondents to a lengthy interview. Moreover, the results suggest that targeting on the basis of simple demographics may be about as effective as targeting based on either attitudes alone or the set of 15 variables.

And at the least, the study provides the Public Relations practitioner with help in the manner envisioned by Hyman and Sheatsley by identifying attitudes, factors affecting public opinion and the extent to which information reaches the public.

Overall, these results show that a mix of mediated and interpersonal communication in a public information campaign, targeted to groups predisposed toward desired behavior, can play a crucial role in motivating that behavior. It further suggests that the most effective messages will be those that address the particular needs of an audience segment. And, the results indicate that, while media may set the agenda for an audience, those mediated messages will find their greatest power when they are used in conjunction with interpersonal communication.

THE NEED FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

This study did not attempt to identify the sequence in which respondents were exposed to mediated and interpersonal communication. There- fore, it does not provide a direct test of Chaffee’s view of mass and interpersonal

382 Vol. 19. No. 4

7he Kindness of Stranflers: Predictor Variabks in a Public Information Campaa&z

media as “reciprocally stimulating” although that might be inferred. Nonetheless, additional research which includes time references could examine message impact specifically from the perspective of sequence.

Furthermore, the most accurate level of prediction was 70-75 percent (by the “super set”). While this is better than flipping a coin, it is still not as accurate as we

might wish. This research suggests there are intervening variables as yet unknown, or at least unexplored in this study, that impact reaction to public information campaign efforts. Further research might uncover some of these other variables and help to

improve the accuracy level. And, such research might also provide additional material for theory building in the sense that theory represents, as William McGuire suggests, “insight into reality.“25

The insight that evolves from this research is similar to that of Chaffee’s parallel

sources notion. Communication, attitudes, knowledge and demographics, (as an indicator of one’s place in life) all seem to operate as parallel sources of influence. While the analysis indicates some may be more influential than others, they all appear to exert some influence.

And, it appears from this research that, at least in public information campaigns, a mix of mass and interpersonal communication can serve as a stimulus that moves audience members from attitudes to behavior, particularly when the messages are targeted to the needs of audience members.

NOTES

Scott M. Cutlipp, Allen H. Center, and Glen M. Broom, Ejjktive Public Relations 6th ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1985), p. 16. Donald T. Mogavero, “When the Funds Come Tumbling Down,” Public Relations Journal (October 1981), pp. 12-13. Don Bates, “11 Signal Trends in Not-for-Profit Organizations,” Public Relations Journal (November 1982), pp. 22-23. Glen M. Broom and David M. Dozier, “Advancement for Public Relations Role Models,” Public Relations Review (Spring 1986), pp. 37-56; Cutlipp, Center, and Broom, pp. 68-70. Also see Joel Brockner, Beth Guzzi, Julie Kane, Ellen Levine, and Rate Shaplen, “Organizational Fundraising: Further Evidence on the Effects of Legitimizing Small Donations,” Journal of Consumev Research (January 1984), pp. 61 l-614. Garrett J. O’Keefe, Harold Mendelsohn, and Jenny Liu, “The Audience for Public Service Advertising: An Exploratory View,” paper presented to the Advertising Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, August, 1980. Herbert H. Hyman and Paul B. Sheatsley, “Some Reasons Why Information Campaigns Fail,” Public Opinion Q+zrterly (11 1947), pp. 412423. Ibid. Raymond Bauer, “The Obstinate Audience: The Influence Process from the Point-of- View of Social Communication,” American Pycbolo&t (19 1964), pp. 319-328. Harold Mendelsohn, “Some Reasons Why Information Campaigns Can Succeed,”

Wmter 1993 383


Public Opinion Quarterly (37 1973), pp. 50-61. 10. James A. Files, “Study Shows that Public Information Campaigns Work,” Public

Relations Journal (January 1984), pp. 8-9, reports on a paper presented by Garrett J. O’Keefe concerning the results of an Advertising Council campaign to the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, August, 1983.

11. James E. Grunig and Daniel A. Ipes, “The Anatomy of a Campaign Against Drunk Driving,” Public Relations Review (Summer, 1983), pp. 36-52.

12. Ibid. 13. Steven Chaffee, “Mass Media in Political Campaigns: An Expanding Role,” in Ronald E.

Rice and William J. Paisley (eds.), Public Communication Campaigns, (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1981), pp. 181-198.

14. Brenda Dervin, “Mass Communication: Changing Conceptions of the Audience,” in Rice and Paisley, pp. 71-87.

15. Ibid. 16. O’Keefe, Mendelsohn, and Liu. 17. Brad Edmondson, “Who Gives to Charity?,” American Demogvapbics (November,

1986), pp. 44-46. 18. Barry Keating, Robert Pitts, and David L. Appel, “United Way Contributions: Coercion,

Charity or Economic Self-Interest?,” Southern Economic Journal (Spring, 198 1 ), p. 821. 19. General Public Focus Group Summary, unpublished report on four focus

groups conducted on behalf of the United Way, Dade County, Florida, December 22, 1986.

20. David J. Blum, “Many Workers Oppose Employers’ Pressures to Give to Charities,” Wall Stveet Journal (January 12, 1982), p. 1, also Bates, p. 23.

21. David Horton Smith, “United Way Is the Name, Monopoly Is the Game,” Business and Society Review (Spring, 1978), pp. 30-34.

22. Stephen W. Littlejohn, Z%eovies of Human Communication, 2nd ed. (Belmont, CA:

Wadsworth Publishing, 1983), p. 291. 23. Hyman and Sheatsley, p. 42 1. 24. John A. Ledingham and Lynne Masel Walters, “Written on the Wind: The Mass Media

and Hurricane Alicia,” Newspaper Research Journal (Winter, 1985), p. 56.

25. William J. McGuire, “Theoretical Foundations of Campaigns,” in Rice and Paisley, p.

42.

384 Vol. 19, No. 4

the kindness of strangers: predictor variables in a public information campaign

Documents