Public Affairs Personnel Perspective: Results

References

Barge K.J. (1994). Leadership: Communication Skills for Organizations and Group. New York: St. Martin Press.

Becker, L. (1979). Measurement of gratifications. Communication Research, 6, 54-73.

Blumler, J. The role of theory in uses and gratifications studies. Communication Research, 6, 9-36.

Burgoon, J. & Hale J. (1983). A research note of the dimensions of communication reticence. Communication Quarterly, 31, 238-248.

Drake, B.H., & Moberg D.J., (1986). Communicating influence attempts in dyads: Linguistic sedatives and palliatives. Academy of Management Review, 2, 567-584.

Fisher, B.A. & Ellis, D.G. (1990). Small group decision making: Communication and the group process. New York: McGraw Hill Publishing Co.

Garramone, G. (1984). Audience motivation effects. Communication Research, 11, 79-96.

Harris, T.E. & Sherblom J.C. (1999). Small group and team communication. Needham Heights, Mass: Allyn & Bacon.

Infante, D.A., Rancer, A.S., Womack, D.F. (1997). Building communication theory. Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.

Krone, K.J. (1991). Effects of leader-member exchange on subordinates' upward influence attempts. Communication Research Reports, 8, 9-18.

Levy, M. & Windahl, S. (1984). Audience activity and gratifications. Communication Research, 11, 51-78.

Lowery, S. & De Fleur, M. (1983). Milestones in mass communication research: Media effects. New York: Longman Publishers.

MacIntyre, P.D. & Thivierge, K.A. (1995). The effects of audience pleasantness, audience familiarity, and speaking contexts on public speaking anxiety and willingness to speak. Communication Quarterly, 43, 456-466.

McCroskey, J. (1982). Oral communication apprehension: A reconceptualization. In M. Burgoon (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 6 (pp. 136-170). New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Books.

McCroskey, J. (1984). The communication apprehension perspective. In J. Daly & J. McCroskey (Eds.), Avoiding Communication (pp. 13-38). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Miller, M.D. (1987). The relationship of communication reticence and negative expectations. Communication Education, 35, 228-235.

Nebecker, D.M. & Mitchell, T.R. (1974). Leader behavior: an expectancy theory approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 11, (3) 355-367.

Rubin, A. (1979). Television use by children and adolescents. Human Communication Research, 5, 109-120.

Rubin, A. (1983). Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of viewing patterns and motivations. Journal of Broadcasting, 27, 37-51.

Rubin, A. (1984). Ritualized and instrumental television viewing. Journal of Communication, 34, 67-77.

Rubin, A. (1986). Uses, gratifications, and media effects research. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman, (Eds.), Perspectives on media effects (pp. 281-302). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers

Swanson, D. (1979). The continuing evolution of the uses and gratifications approach. Communication Research, 6, 3-7.

Appendix I: Survey

Thank you for your participation in this research. The focus of this study is to explore and determine what influences affect commander’s willingness to support public affairs throughout the Department of Defense. Please answer the questions as honestly as possible. Your answers and responses will remain completely anonymous.

For comments or questions about this research project, contact Meghan Mariman, LT, USN.

The first section of this survey asks for some general information. Please write or type your response in the appropriate space provided for each question.

1. What is your branch of service?

2. What is your rank?

3. How old are you?

4. Sex

5. Is public affairs your primary career field?

6. How many years have you been in public affairs?

7. How long have you been working with your present commander?

Less than 1
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years or more

The next portion of the survey asks some questions about your commander's perceptions of different aspects of the public affairs mission. Please click on the corresponding button next to the appropriate response:

8. My commander feels that the media rarely get the story correct.

9. My commander sees the media as more of a nuisance than an opportunity to tell story.

10. My commander believes that the media are fair and objective when covering the military.

11. My commander feels that the military has an obligation to the media and the public to release as much information as possible as quickly as possible.

12. My commander has established good personal relations with media.

13. My commander welcomes the opportunity to work with the media.

14. My commander has dealt with competent, effective public affairs personnel in the past.

15. My commander has been successful in the past at implementing public affairs programs to enhance mission effectiveness.

16. My commander’s superior sees public affairs as a function of command.

17. My commander’s superior believes in the importance of strong effective public affairs programs.

18. When a significant issue arises, my commander rarely brings public affairs into the discussion.

19. My commander sees public affairs as a non-operational function.

20. My commander sees public affair as mission oriented.

21. My commander will often follow public affairs advice, even if it means more difficulty in accomplishing the primary mission.

22. My commander perceives public affairs as necessary for mission completion.

23. My commander is interested in outlining mission requirements as they relate to public affairs.

24. My commander often includes public affairs at mission briefings/planning sessions.

25. My commander has confidence in public affairs to tell the mission story as it relates to the command and its personnel.

26. My commander gives support to public affairs to tell the mission story.

27. My commander feels they have received effective job training with regard to their public affairs responsibilities.

28. My commander feels the public affairs training for them is conducted often enough.

29. My commander feels there is an improvement in public affairs education after training.

30. My commander feels more training should be made available to them to improve public affairs support.

31. My commander understands the purpose of public affairs education.

32. My commander understands the advantages of public affairs education programs.

33. My commander feels they have a well-defined public affairs program.

34. My commander feels they meet with public affairs as often as need be.

35. My commander is supportive of current public affairs initiatives.

36. My commander is supportive of new public affairs initiatives.

37. My commander often develops public affairs programs that support subordinate units.

38. My commander initiates public affairs programs that support subordinate units.

39. My commander assists public affairs programs for subordinate units.

40. My commander takes an active interest in public affairs programs.

41. My commander fully understands the purpose of public affairs.

42. My commander understands the needs of public affairs.

43. My commander feels that public affairs has an important role.

44. My commander feels that the public affairs program has the command’s best interests in mind.

45. My commander feels that an inadequate action on behalf of public affairs can cause them not to be promoted/career.

46. My commander feels that public affairs can cause embarrassment.

47. My commander knows of others who have been caused embarrassment by public affairs.

48. My commander is overly cautious with public affairs.

49. How confident are you in the accuracy of the answers regarding your commander's perceptions of Public Affairs?

The last portion of the survey asks you to list any other influences not addressed in this survey that may affect a commander’s support of public affairs. Please enter your response below.

[survey has been disabled and no longer accepts submissions.]

Appendix 2: Capstone Comments Coding Sheet

Coding instructions: Review each comment for content and classify each comment as either POSITIVE or NEGATIVE in terms of understanding and support. If a comment does not fall into one of these categories, classify it as OTHER.

Categories:

1. POSITIVE: My Commander understands the role, significance and importance of Public Affairs, and therefore provides support.

2. NEGATIVE: My Commander is unsupportive and does not understand the role, significance, or importance of Public Affairs personnel, programs, or initiatives.

TOTAL #1 comments = 25
TOTAL #2 comments = 41
TOTAL #3 comments = 108
TOTAL comments classified = 174

Meghan Mariman, LT, USN | Steve Butler, CAPT, USMC | Cameron Porter, SSGT, USA