|
Abstract
Credibility is a characteristic of a
person who is perceived by others to be a trusted advisor, believable, and
confident by exhibiting a high level of expertise in a certain subject. The
most important aspect to credibility is that it is an attributed variable.
This characteristic can be considered a communication-based variable since
it is the outcome of certain communication behavior, whether analyzed in an
interpersonal or organizational setting. There are many aspects to
credibility that have been studied in social science research. This study
looks at how certain demographic factors and adaptive trait behaviors can
positively or negatively manipulate an individual’s credibility when that
individual is a newcomer to the organization. This study examines is the
interaction between the new Public Affairs Officer (PAO) serving his first
tour and his new command staff.
With Likert-type surveys, this study proposes assessing the
self-reported levels of three trait-like behaviors of the new PAO. We view
these traits as influential behaviors associated with high credibility.
Specifically, we questioned how certain trait-like behaviors such as
communication competency, assertiveness, and interaction involvement affect
a person’s perceived credibility and whether demographic factors affect PAOs’
credibility as they enter public affairs within their respective service
branches. Realizing this study’s findings could be highly speculative and
there are possibly many other factors which could influence credibility, we
feel the findings based upon these conceptualized variables will introduce a
novel approach toward helping new PAOs better understand the complex
dynamics of credibility.
Return to
Top
Introduction
Most military Public Affairs Officers (PAOs)
would agree they are in a challenging profession. One of the first challenges
they experience is reporting to their first duty assignment and dealing with the
relational uncertainty between themselves and other unit members. PAOs must
also establish their credibility within the command structure in order to
effectively do their job. Schweiger (2000) defines credibility as an attributed
variable given to a communicator from a receiver, based upon that receiver’s
internal perception of the communicator. The receiver’s (unit member)
perception can be negatively or positively influenced depending on certain
trait-like behaviors the communicator (PAO) exhibits. Likewise, the
communicator’s known background (years of experience in service branch or public
affairs) can also sway a receiver’s perception which can ultimately influence
the level of credibility organizational members will attribute to the newcomer.
The direction of this study focuses on the underlying
elements of credibility that new PAOs may or may not recognize.
Personality-driven or trait-like behaviors, recognized as universally positive
for a professional communicator, can be construed as important factors when
deciphering a communicator’s credibility. Demographic factors, such as
experience and training, may also affect credibility. What are some common
personality traits and demographic characteristics that every PAO needs to be
credibly perceived as the new command public affairs spokesperson?
The first aspect of this study collects demographic
information, such as years of service and education level, in order to analyze
its possible correlation to credibility. Each service accesses its PAOs
differently based on service-unique criteria which affect the PAOs different
demographic factors. Can a causal relationship be identified between accession
and credibility? Additionally, the nature of military culture which revolves
around training, is an important aspect which contributes to an individual’s
credibility. Every military service member must complete a certain level of
training per occupational specialty. The Defense Information School (DINFOS)
provides the required training for all military PAOs by teaching basic public
affairs principles. Armed with DINFOS training, PAOs should have the necessary
skills to perform as credible communication practitioners.
We chose, from many options, to study three common
personality-based variables – communication competency, assertiveness, and
interaction involvement. These trait behaviors are “assumed to be consistent
across contexts and specific situations within particular contexts…one’s
behavior regarding a trait is expected not to vary greatly from one situation to
the next” (Infante, Rancer, & Womack, 1997, p. 106). These hypothetical
constructs were chosen because we feel they are the most applicable to PAO
credibility.
Our method includes three surveys to assess self-reported
levels of each behavioral variable as perceived by the new PAO regardless of
service. We posit the survey results can be compared to the next element of the
study, an assessment of the commander’s perception of PAO credibility. All
surveys include information regarding experience and training to analyze the
demographic aspect of the study.
Return to
Top
Statement of Problem
Whether in peacetime or during conflict, PAOs provide timely and
accurate information to their respective service members, military families,
and the American public. As the commander’s spokesperson, the PAO should be
considered a knowledgeable, credible, and competent staff officer who
understands his unit’s strategic and tactical goals and knows how and when
to communicate those goals to internal and external audiences.
Unfortunately, PAOs often find themselves having to prove their
communication competencies and knowledge before they are seen as credible by
their peers and senior leadership. Without this credibility, PAOs are not
considered equal partners in the command’s planning and operation efforts
and subsequently cannot perform their mission—“telling the command story.”
Since it is the PAO’s responsibility to be
truthful about command issues which generate media interest, they often face
a credibility issue spawned by an organizational hesitancy to publicly
release information which may be construed as negative or damaging to the
command. However, just as commanders trust their personnel and
administrative officers with personnel issues or aviators with unit
aircraft, commanders must be able to entrust their PAOs to effectively
collect, interpret, and disseminate information. Without an open
communication system between the command and the PAO, entropy inevitably
increases, resulting in an ineffective public affairs program.
From the PAO’s perspective, nothing is more
important than gaining a sense of credibility and developing an open system
of organizational communication between the PAO and command staff. The
question posed is why some PAOs have a harder time fostering this positive
relationship than others. Do certain behavioral traits or demographic
variables contribute to the problem? For example, could certain trait-like
behaviors, such as the PAO’s and or the commander’s dogmatic perception of
true credibility, inhibit a new PAO’s ability to be perceived as credible,
especially when first being introduced into the unit? Could the PAO
accession program directly influence the perceived level of credibility the
command will initially bestow on their PAO?
This study looks at credibility as an
important communication-based variable since it greatly influences other
communication behaviors in organizational contexts. With increased
perception of credibility comes more effective communication, justifying the
basis of this study. We are not claiming these factors are exhaustive.
Instead we explore the possibility that our selected variables directly
affect perceived credibility.
Return to
Top
Conceptual Orientation
Demographically, this analysis looks at how PAOs are accessed into and trained
in the public affairs vocation. Understanding the importance of credibility in
the public affairs profession, it is intriguing that each service branch
acquires their PAOs differently. For example, Marine Corps and Air Force PAOs
are predominately accessed at the junior officer grade while all Army and Navy
PAOs transfer into public affairs after working in other fields of their service
branch. The differences among the services can be categorized as generalists
(Army and Navy) or specialists (Marine Corps and Air Force). Generalists have a
broad, basic understanding of the military and usually have at least two years
of experience in their service while the specialists do not have the direct
service experience.
The mission of military public
affairs is to keep the American people and the military informed and to help
establish the conditions that lead to confidence in America’s military and its
readiness to conduct operations in peacetime, conflict and war. Even though
military PAOs have the same mission, each service conducts public affairs from a
service-unique perspective. The following conceptualization will explain the
different accession programs for each service.
Demographic Factors
Army Perspective
Public
Affairs is considered a “functional area” in the U.S. Army as opposed to a
branch. A branch is a grouping of officers that comprises an arm or service
of the Army in which officers are commissioned, assigned, developed, and
promoted throughout their company grade years (through Captain, or O-3).
Officers are accessed into and will hold a single branch designation until
the fifth or sixth year of service (DA PAM 600-3, 1998). At that time, they
are augmented with a functional area, such as public affairs. They continue
to wear their branch insignia throughout their career.
A functional area is a grouping of officers
by technical specialty or skill, which usually requiring significant
education, training, and experience. Officers are designated into a
functional area based on a number of criteria including individual
preference, academic background (including type of civilian degree and grade
point average), manner of performance, training and experience, and needs of
the Army. Public Affairs Officers are tactically proficient as a result of
successful branch qualification in a basic branch (something other than
public affairs, such as Infantry or Military Intelligence). This “grounding
in the operational Army is vital to success and credibility as a Public
Affairs officer” (DA PAM 600-3, 1998, p. 244). This process develops PAOs
with five or more years of experience of Army corporate knowledge.
Navy Perspective
New navy PAOs must have extensive corporate
knowledge before applying to laterally transfer into the community. Based on
the fact that Navy PAOs “must be able to understand complex Navy issues,
break them down, and communicate their details to a given audience” (Bupers
Web Site), the Navy only takes officers into the PAO community who have
successfully proven their corporate abilities in other disciplines.
The typical selectee has between two and six years of commissioned service,
has an excellent record,
is warfare qualified
and is career motivated. Some have experience as collateral-duty PAOs or
possess an educational background in mass
communication, journalism or a related field (Bupers Web Site).
An important aspect of the selection
process is the candidate’s warfare qualification which refers to an
officer’s proficiency in another naval discipline. For naval officers to
become warfare qualified, they must progress through a rigorous and lengthy
qualification process demonstrating their expertise in their chosen
community. The warfare pin, worn prominently on the officer’s uniform, is a
visual demonstration of excellence and lends instant credibility to the
wearer as an expert in corporate knowledge. Although candidates must have
extensive corporate knowledge, selection boards for new Navy PAOs, more
often than not, choose candidates who have already proven themselves in a
public affairs capacity as a collateral duty PAO, or perhaps possess a
degree in communications or journalism, demonstrating that discipline
knowledge coupled with corporate knowledge is the true factor for success in
the Navy’s accession program.
Navy PAOs attend DINFOS for basic public
affairs training. Initial assignments for Navy PAOs are chosen carefully,
with the most proficient personnel assigned to the most difficult jobs. It
should be noted that although Navy PAOs are expected to be ready to perform
their jobs once they arrive in the Fleet, they have a strong support
structure in place throughout the world that is basically a secondary,
public affairs chain of command that can assist the junior PAO.
Marine Corps Perspective
The
accession of Marine Corps PAOs begins at the company grade level upon
completion of Officer Candidate School (OCS) and The Basic School (TBS).
During a mandatory, 26-week course of instruction at TBS, newly commissioned
second Lieutenant gain a wide variety of knowledge about the Marine Corps
(with a focus on Infantry) and are evaluated in areas such as leadership,
military skills, academics, and physical fitness. The Basic School
instruction ensures young Marine Corps officers have the cognitive ability
to perform as basic infantry platoon commanders in the Fleet Marine Force,
no matter what other occupational specialty the Marine focuses on during his
career. A TBS student’s overall grade-point standing at the end of the
course helps determine the Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) they
receive. After graduating TBS, students move on to their MOS schools and
then out to the fleet, taking with them the valuable lessons learned at
TBS. The Basic School is an experience common to all Marine Corps officers.
During MOS selection, instructors do not
require specific educational or experiential prerequisites for any field,
including public affairs. Officers with some type of communication
background or training are favored when screening for PAO billets. The PAO
community at large is approximately 140 officers in strength. Therefore, in
order to satisfy the sufficient numbers needed at the junior officer level,
an average of 12 new second lieutenants are introduced into the field every
year. The final test these lieutenants must pass in order to confirm their
status as new public affairs professionals is to successfully complete the
9-week PAO course at DINFOS.
Another way the Marine Corps accesses new
PAOs is through MOS transfer programs. In order to fill the remaining public
affairs junior-officer requirements, predominately 0-3 billets, Marine
officers from other occupational specialties are allowed to transfer from
other communities, such as motor transport or artillery. This program is an
effective tool to help senior company-grade officers learn a new job which
ultimately enhances their military career.
Air Force Perspective
The Air Force accesses from 25 to 35 PAOs per year. Approximately 10 to 20
percent of accessions are U.S. Air Force Academy graduates. About 70 to 80
percent come from Reserve Officer Training Corps with the remaining 10
percent from Officer Training School. All officers start as a deputy chief
of public affairs at the wing level and after three to four years progress
to chief positions.
While serving as a deputy chief of public
affairs, the officers spends their time under the guidance of the PAO. The
officer learns the technical part of being a PAO. The officer receives
DINFOS training during this tenure if he or she hasn’t already received it
prior to this first assignment. The officer also receives on-the-job
training and mentorship during this period as well.
"Across the range of military operations,
public affairs enhances a commander's ability to accomplish the mission
successfully" (PA Doctrine, 1999, p.7). During every phase of contingency
operations, public affairs should be represented on the information
operation team. The synergistic relationship between the PAO and the
commander is an integral attribute to a unit's strategic planning and daily
operations and success.|
There are no specific degree requirements
for officers to enter the public affairs career. It is desirable for a
candidate to possess a public communications, communicative arts,
journalism, public relations, advertising, sociology, or social psychology
degree. Public affairs officers are assigned to nearly every location and
every level of command.
Coast Guard Perspective
For the
purposes of this study, we did not look at the Coast Guard PAO accession
program. Due to the low numbers of designated Coast Guard PAOs, we feel the
data collected would be infinitesimal for our study.
Training
While
previous education is considered before placing a candidate into public
affairs, the services do not require a degree in communication, journalism,
or a related field. Placement into public affairs is based on candidate
request, the needs of the service at that time and the recommendation of
instructors and supervisors either in early military training or work
experience. The only public affairs training officers receive is available
at DINFOS.
The Public Affairs Officer
Coarse at DINFOS is an eight week, three day course at Fort Meade, Maryland,
which instructs the following: theory, concepts, policies and principles of
community relations within the military environment; public affairs
communication; speech and research; basic journalism and broadcasting;
service-specific instruction towards public affairs; public affairs
responsibilities that apply to the unified and specified military command;
media relations; on-camera training; and requirements and concepts the
public affairs officer needs in a theatre of war (DINFOS, 2001).
Personality
Traits
The personality aspect of this study focuses on three behavioral;
communication competency, assertiveness, and interaction involvement. Of
the many communication traits necessary to be an adept communicator, we feel
that these three were the most vital to a young PAO in regards to
credibility.
Communication Competency
Competence is an adaptation trait which has received much attention by
communication researchers (Infante et al., 1997). Wiemann (1977) defines
the competent communicator as:
Other-oriented to the extent that he is open (available) to receive messages
from others, does not provoke
anxiety in others by exhibiting anxiety himself, is empathic, has a large
enough behavioral repertoire to allow
him to meet the demands of changing situations, and finally, is supportive
of the faces and lines his fellow
interactants present (p. 197).
Wiemann (1977) also contends that
competence is not only other-oriented but the communicator is able to
successfully complete his own communication goals and make his point in a
given situation. This self and other interaction allows for the
communicator to choose from a variety of behaviors to achieve his or her
goals while still maintaining the other’s input in the conversation without
damaging the relationship.
Monge, Bachman, Dillard, and Eisenberg
(1983) took Weimann’s (1977) study further by separating competence into two
correlating factors – encoding and decoding. This refinement of the early
definition of competence allows for this study to focus this concept on
organizational contexts and make it appropriate for research in the
workplace (Monge et al., 1983). Communication competency, as compared to
other personality traits associated with ability, appears to be one of the
most tangible behavior characteristics.
Communication Assertiveness
Assertiveness can
be described as a “person’s general tendency to be interpersonally dominant,
ascendant and forceful” (Infante et al., 1997, p. 127). In their research,
Lorr and More (1980) found four distinct aspects of assertiveness;
directiveness, social assertiveness, defense of rights and interests and
independence (Infante et al., 1997).
Directiveness entails how willing people
are to step up and insert themselves into a leadership position or “take
charge in group situations and seeking positions where one can influence
others” (Infante et al., 1997, p. 127). Social assertiveness describes how
well a person can interact with others, how willing they are to initiate
conversations, and their ability to interact with strangers on a social or
business level. Defense of rights and interests basically describes the
ability of an individual to stand up for their own rights or to confront
people who might be infringing upon their own or others’ views. Finally,
independence is the ability of an individual to stand firm in their beliefs
even when they might be in the minority (Infante et al., 1997).
Assertiveness is viewed as a constructive
trait. To be truly effective within an organization, an individual should
be able to positively state their position on a subject without infringing
on the ideas and thoughts of others who hold opposing viewpoints. The
ability to express strongly held viewpoints without attacking another’s is
crucial to credibility.
Brass and Burkhardt (1993) hypothesized
that “use of assertiveness…will be positively related to perceptions of
power” (p. 448). They distributed surveys to 75 employees of a research
company to explore the relationship between an employee’s structural
position within a company and how that position relates to their use of
power. They concluded that structural position accompanied with certain
behavioral traits, assertiveness included, has an effect on other employee’s
perception of an individual’s power (Brass & Burkhardt, 1993).
Interaction Involvement
Interaction involvement can be defined as the “tendency to participate with
another in conversation composed of three dimensions: responsiveness,
perceptiveness, and attentiveness” (Infante et al., 1997, p. 126). “People
who are higher in interaction involvement are generally viewed as more
competent communicators. Persons who are low in interaction involvement
tend to be ‘removed’ from the situation” (Infante et al., 1997, p. 126).
Argyle (1972) presents an idea of social rules which are portrayed as:
Intricate and interlocking sequences,
which make social systems workable if the different participants play their
parts properly. The sequences are
like language in that they have rules of sequences, which people follow
without awareness (p. 627).
Cegala (1981) defines interaction
involvement as the degree to which people are engaged, cognitively and
behaviorally, in their conversations with others. Many researchers have
conceptualized interaction involvement and its attributing variables in
interpersonal relationships, but few have provided extensive research in the
area leading up to today’s explanations.
The basis of interaction involvement during
interpersonal communication is that a person is always consciously involved
in all aspects of the communication process. Cegala suggests an
individual’s involvement, whether more or less, can take several possible
directions during the course of any given interaction. He assumes that
competence consists of cognitive, affective, and performance components, and
at the same time, correlates multiple levels of self esteem with interaction
involvement (1984).
The correlation between involvement and self esteem suggests that this
relative certainty / uncertainty are fundamentally anchored in attitudes
toward oneself. Overall, then, there is the strong suggestion that low
interaction involvement is significantly related to negative affect that is
anchored in low self esteem and anxiety (Cegala, 1984, p. 324).
Return to
Top
Rationale (Research Question)
Researchers have studied the
complex intricacies of credibility for decades. Studies have focused on how
the perceived credibility of an individual influences their effectiveness
when using persuasive communication. Studies have also looked at
communicative, nonverbal behaviors, such as facial expressiveness, speaker’s
posture and voice inflection to see how they influence credibility (Heath &
Bryant, 2000). Another complicated factor associated with credibility is
that it constantly fluctuates with time. It is not static during any
communicative process or in any situational context. For example, many news
organizations may have been perceived as highly credible before the 2000
U.S. Presidential election. After the election, the public’s perception of
the media’s credibility may have drastically changed. Moreover, this
credibility issue seems to have even more relevance for the organizational
or corporate spokesperson.
We suggest that most effective
communication practitioners would agree there is no other personal
characteristic more important than establishing and maintaining
credibility. From the American public’s perspective, there seems to be a
higher expectation for military PAOs and other government information
spokespersons to function as highly credible sources. For example, despite
several government public relations fiascos like the Nixon Administration’s
decision to invade Cambodia or the Clinton Administration’s infidelity
scandal, the press seems to place great reliance on government information
for reporting public affairs issues. This warrants academic research in
trying to unravel which factors are associated with high credibility.
In this study we identified variables that
seemingly have an impact on perceived credibility. Demographically, we
looked into each service branches’ PAO accession program in order to compare
the demographic differences. Research indicates that two branches (Army and
Navy) insist their PAOs have at least two years of active duty experience
before entering the public affairs field. A study by Hurley and Fagenson-Eland
(1997) looked extensively at the differences and advantages between
employees that have X years of experience versus those with a breadth of
experience. Their findings concluded that managers with a wide range of
corporate knowledge had more successful careers, rising to top management
positions faster than those that developed more specific line skills.
Conversely, those managers who worked totally in a specific department or
field were less likely to be promoted to top management positions.
“Organizations need to develop generalists. These individuals should have
core skills, flexibility and breadth of experience relevant to the company”
(Hurley & Fagenson-Eland, 1997, p. 68). Relating this information to our
study we wondered if this insight was true for successful PAOs. If so, why
do some service branches (Marine Corps and Air Force) access many of their
PAOs at the 0-1 (second lieutenant) grade level.
The differences in accession programs led
us to question if public affairs training was an equally influential, source
variable of credibility. As discussed earlier, DINFOS is the primary school
that most new PAOs attend sometime early in their career. Regardless of the
PAO’s background, the school’s mission is to teach the technical skills of
communication. Analyzing both of these factors from a systems perspective,
the interaction between accession and training seemingly works to achieve
the DoD’s end state or goal—develop qualified, technically-proficient
service spokespersons and assimilate them into their respective public
affairs communities. Therefore the training factor seems to give the
overall accession system an equifinal property. However, what about
credibility? The question stems from the recognized complex accession
system just discussed. If achieving career success has been associated with
a person acquiring a substantive amount corporate knowledge, perhaps the
same is true when discussing credibility.
Recognizing the elusiveness of credibility
and the importance PAOs place on establishing and maintaining it, we felt
the need to define some traits unquestionably related to credibility.
Looking at Infante et al.’s (1997) categorization of trait approaches, we
found three variables to analyze. Under the grouping of adaptive traits, we
feel these variables are common to most effective communicators.
The first adaptive trait we conceptualized
is communication “ability.” A person’s ability to communicate effectively,
in writing or verbally, is essential for communication practitioners. PAOs,
from their first day at DINFOS, learn to refine these communication skills.
These skills become their ‘tools of the trade.’ Any normal work day for a
PAO includes writing press releases, editing the installation newspaper, or
conducting on-camera interviews. This leads us to believe that
communication ability is a necessity rather than a luxury. We conceptualize
the idea of ability as a behavior trait labeled communication competency.
The second personality trait we
conceptualize is “confidence.” Sometimes situations dictate a PAO’s need to
confidently address their senior leadership concerning sensitive issues or
situations. This invaluable trait can help the command see certain issues
from the public’s perspective. Therefore, a PAO’s level of confidence is
vital, especially when the command is dealing with a sensitive or damaging
situation that can ultimately harm their public image. For this study we
associate confidence with the adaptive trait labeled assertiveness.
Assertiveness is a constructive trait that we advance as another essential
trait for PAOs.
The last adaptive trait we selected can be
referred to as “communicative intuition.” On a daily basis, PAOs deal with
internal and external audiences, each having a unique personality. Perhaps
the real crux of this issue is the PAO’s willingness to accurately decode
the audience’s messages before encoding an inappropriate response. Also
considered to be a highly adaptive trait, intuition will enable PAOs to
assess the predominant feelings, emotions or beliefs of each audience.
Another defining term for this trait is “common sense.” We associate this
personality trait with interaction involvement. Based on the above reasoning the following
research questions are advanced:
RQ1: What are the
effects of the adaptive behavior traits—communication competence,
assertiveness, and interaction involvement on a PAO’s credibility?
RQ2: Is the number of
years of military service correlated to credibility?
Return to
Top
Methodology
Participants and Procedures
Participants in
the study will include newly accessed PAOs in all four services and their
commanders. Participants will be instructed to self-report their levels of
communication competence, assertiveness, and interaction involvement at the
six month mark of their first public affairs assignment. Since this study
involves officers reporting to their first duty station as PAOs, and only a
limited number access the community each year, we propose a three-year study
in order to accumulate valid and reliable results. The surveys should be
distributed to all new PAOs and their supervisors to obtain a large enough
sample. Surveys will be distributed through service branch public affairs
career managers to ensure all new PAOs have the opportunity to participate
in the study. Along with the PAO surveys, supervisor surveys will be
enclosed with instructions for completion. This procedure should be
employed while the PAO is in the early stages of relational uncertainty
within the organization in order to capture the PAOs’ initial perceptions as
they enter the new environment. Participation in this study will be
voluntary and anonymous.
Return to
Top
Instruments
To measure credibility, we use the McCroskey’s (1966) source
credibility scale because it has been proven by many researchers to have
face and criterion-related validity. The article that first introduced this
scale has been referenced at least 100 times in previous research. This
scale has been used to confirm presumed credible speakers will actually be
perceived as credible (Rubin, 1981). The format of the scale has emerged as
the “predominant method of scaling” (Rubin, 1981, p. 335) credibility.
The communicative competence scale created
by Wiemann (1977) will be used to measure competence of the PAO. This scale
has been used in research numerous times and found to be effective with
alphas between .85 and .91 (Rubin, 1981). The specific scale used for the
PAOs is an adapted self-report format employed by Cupach and Spitzberg
(1983).
Many methods are available to test for
assertiveness and assertiveness training is offered by many different
organizations. The World Wide Web offers thousands of self-administered
assertiveness tests. For the purpose of this study, we are employing the
Rathus (1973) Assertiveness Schedule which Lorr and More (1980) claim as
“one of the better known self-report measures” (p. 128).
Cegala’s (1981) scale measures the degree a person possesses for high or low
interaction involvement. Researchers use this scale today because of its
track record of reliability and validity. “Test-retest reliability for the
trait Interaction Involvement Scale appears to be very good” (Rubin, 1981,
p. 187). Tests performed by Cegala et al. (1981) reported their test-retest
with reliable alpha levels in the .80s. Other tests by researchers reported
test-retest results with alpha levels in the .60s. “The Interaction
Involvement Scale also appears to be internally consistent” (Rubin, 1981, p.
187). Validity tests performed on this scale yielded evidence to concur
strong validity.
Statistical
Analysis
Once the three
year survey is complete, the data collected could be analyzed using one of
two quantitative methods. The first possible method is to perform an
analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the results. The other approach is multiple
regression.
The ANOVA can be used since this study
examines at least two or more categorical independent variables, each with
at least two levels (i.e. personality trait high and low levels). This
factoral design will analyze the participants’ self-reported results of the
three trait independent variables which will be demonstrated by 2 x 2 x 2 =
F (credibility). A median will be found for each trait exposing the high
and low levels of that trait. This test will show the effect of each
variable independently on the dependent variable and the interaction of the
variables together. A Pearson’s correlation will be run between each
demographic variable and the dependent variable to examine the strength of
the relationship between the variables.
Table 1 is a factorial ANOVA visual
demonstration of this credibility study.
Table 1.
First
Second Third Fourth
Independent Independent
Independent Independent
Variable Variable
Variable Variable
_________________________________________________________________
Demographics:
Communication
Assertiveness: Interaction
Years of service Competency:
Involvement:
Training Hi/Low Hi/Low
Hi/Low
Multiple regression could also be used to analyze the results. Each
subject will have an average score for each predictor variable (personality
trait). The three independent variables will be utilized to predict
individual’s credibility levels. Credibility results will be collected
from the supervisor’s source-credibility survey.
Return to
Top
Projected Results
Results from the credibility tests (competency, assertiveness, and interaction
involvement) will probably reveal that military PAOs exhibit varying degrees of
all three variables. Since the characteristics tested are internal traits and
not something necessarily taught and there is no measure of these traits prior
to entrance into the public affairs field, we project there will be no
conclusive evidence of high levels in any service. It is possible that the Army
and Navy may find higher levels of assertiveness because of those PAOs’
organizational experience which may have helped developed increased confidence
and assertiveness. Commanders may perceive their PAOs as credible based on the
services’ view of the public affairs career field – Army and Navy PAOs will be
higher ranking which in and of itself increases credibility while the Marine
Corps and Air Force have public affairs as its own career field stressing the
importance of the public affairs mission. We project that high credibility
perceived from commanders will correlate to high self-reported levels of the
personality traits.
Return to
Top
Discussion
We feel the
adaptive personality traits of communication competency, assertiveness, and
interaction involvement are directly linked to credibility. As the
spokesperson for their command, establishing and maintaining credibility is
vital to the success of a PAO. We feel possessing these traits will help
enhance the credibility of PAOs and ultimately the success of the mission of
telling the service story.
We expect our study to reveal that new PAOs
have no significantly high levels of these communicative traits. We propose
these tests be administered to prospective public affairs officers at the
point when a service member requests selection into the public affairs
field: Army – at the fifth or sixth year of service when ready for their
functional area; Navy – when requesting a lateral move into public affairs;
Marine Corps – upon completion of The Basic School; Air Force – upon
completion of ROTC. Candidates who score high levels of these traits should
be considered for public affairs. Those who score low may be recommended
for another career area. A potential problem with this system is there may
not be enough candidates requesting public affairs from which to choose. If
this becomes the case, alternate candidates should be considered. But in an
effort to help future PAOs establish credibility, showing the tendency
toward these traits would be a start. If the study reveals no correlation
between the selected traits and credibility, future researchers may select
other adaptive traits to study.
Return to
Top
References
Argyle, M. (1972). Review Essay, Review Author, Erving
Goffman, Rules and Rituals of Everyday Life Relations in Public.
Microstudies of the Public Order and Science, New Series, Vol. 176, No.
4035, pp. 627-628.
Brass, D., & Burkhardt, M. E. (1993). Potential power
and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of
Management Journal, 36(3), 441-470.
Cegala, D. J. (1981). Interaction involvement: A
cognitive dimension of communicative competence, Communication Education,
30, 109-121.
Cegala, D. J. (1984). Affective and cognitive
manifestations of interaction involvement during unstructured and
competitive interactions. Communications Monagram, 51, 320-335.
Cupach, W. R., & Spitzberg, B. H. (1983). Trait versus
state: A comparison of dispositional and situational measures of
interpersonal communication competence. The Western Journal of Speech
Communication, 47, 364-379.
Cutlip, S. M., & Center, A. H. (1971). Effective Public
Relations. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Defense Information School, (2001), 2002 Course
Offerings, http://www.dinfos.osd.mil/course_info/fy2.asp
Department of the Air Force (1999). Public Affairs
Operations: Air Force Doctrine Document 2-5.4. Joint Doctrine for
Information Operations and JP 3-61, Doctrine for Public Affairs in Joint
Operations.
Department of the Army (1998). DA PAM 600-3.
Introduction to the officer career fields.
Department of the Navy Personnel Network Web Site, 2001.
http://www.persnet.navy.mil/pers448/p448home.htm.
Heath, R. L., & Bryant, J. (2000). Human
communication theory and research: Concepts, contexts, and challenges.
Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hurley, A., & Fagenson-Eland, E. (1997). Does
cream always rise to the top? An investigation of career attainment
determinants. Organizational Dynamics, 26(2), 65.
Infante, D., Rancer, A., & Womack, D., (1990).
Building Communicatioin Theory. (3rd Ed.). Prospect Heights,
Il.: Waveland Press Inc.
Lorr, M., & More, W. (1980). Four dimensions of
assertiveness. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 2, 127-138.
McCroskey, J. C. (1966). Scales for the measurement of
ethos. Speech Monographs, 33, 65-72.
Monge, P. R., Bachman, S. G., Dillard, J. P., &
Eisenberg, E. M. (1982). Communicator competence in the workplace: Model
testing and scale development. Communication Yearbook, 5, 505-528.
Rathus, S. (1973). A 30-Item Schedule for Assessing
Assertive Behavior, Behavior Therapy, 4, 398-406.
Rubin, R. B., Palmgreen, P., & Sypher, H. E. (Eds.).
(1981). Communication research measures: A sourcebook. New York:
Guildford Press.
Scheiger, W. (2000). Media credibility – experience or
image? A survey on the credibility of the world wide web in germany in
comparison to other media. European Journal of Communication,
15, 37-59.
Wiemann, J. M. (1977). Explication and test of a model
of communicative competence. Human Communication Research, 3,
195-213.
Return to
Top
Appendix A
Source Credibility
Scale—McCroskey:
12-Item Semantic Differential*
Instructions: On the scales below,
please indicate your feelings about _____________________. Circle the
number between the adjectives which best represents your feeling
about_______________________. Numbers “1” and “7” indicate a very strong
feeling. Numbers “2” and “5” indicate a fairly weak feeling. Number “4”
indicates you are undecided or do not understand the adjectives themselves.
Please work quickly. There are no right or wrong answers.
Authoritativeness
Reliable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unreliable*
Uninformed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Informed
Unqualified 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Qualified
Intelligent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unintelligent*
Valuable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Worthless*
Inexpert 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Expert
Character
Honest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Dishonest*
Unfriendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Friendly
Pleasant 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unpleasant*
Selfish 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Unselfish
Awful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Nice
Virtuous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sinful*
Note.
Items presented here grouped by dimension. Users should randomly order the
bipolar adjectives to avoid response set error variance. Reverse scoring
should be performed for items with asterisks.
__________________________________________________________________
15-Item Semantic
Differential**
Instructions: On the scales below,
pleas indicate your feelings about _____________________. Circle the number
between the adjectives which best represents your feeling
about_______________________. Numbers “1” and “7” indicate a very strong
feeling. Numbers “2” and “5” indicate a fairly weak feeling. Number “4”
indicates you are undecided or do not understand the adjectives themselves.
Please work quickly. There are no right or wrong answers.
Sociability
Good-natured 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Irritable*
Cheerful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Gloomy*
Unfriendly 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Friendly
Extroversion
Timid 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Bold
Verbal 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Quiet*
Talkative 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Silent*
Competence
Expert 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Inexpert*
Unintelligent 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Intelligent
Intellectual 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Narrow*
Composure
Poised 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Nervous*
Tense 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Relaxed
Calm 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Anxious*
Character
Dishonest 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Honest
Unsympathetic 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Sympathetic
Good 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Bad*
Note.
Items presented here grouped by dimension. Users should randomly order the
bipolar adjectives to avoid response set error variance. Reverse scoring
should be performed for items with asterisks.
*
Copyright 1966 by the Speech Communication Association. Reprinted by
permission.
**Copyright 1974 by Sage Publications, Inc. Reprinted by permission.
Return to
Top
Appendix B
Self-Rated Communicative
Competence Scale
Instructions: Complete the following
questionnaire/scale with yourself in mind. Circle one of the sets of
letters before each numbered questions based upon whether you strongly agree
(SA), agree (A), are undecided or neutral (?), disagree (D), or strongly
disagree (SD). Always keep yourself in mind as you answer.
Strongly Agree Undecided
Disagree Strongly
Agree
or neutral
disagree
SA A
?
D SD
1.
I find it easy to get along with others.
2.
I can adapt to changing situations.
3.
I treat people as individuals.
4.
I interrupt others too much.
5.
I am “rewarding” to talk to.
6.
I can deal with others effectively.
7.
I am a good listener.
8.
My personal relations are cold and distant.
9.
I am easy to talk to.
10.
I won’t argue with someone just to prove I’m
right.
11.
My conversation behavior is not “smooth.”
12.
I ignore other people’s feelings.
13.
I generally know how others feel.
14.
I let others know I understand them.
15.
I understand other people.
16.
I am relaxed and comfortable when speaking.
17.
I listen to what people say to me.
18.
I like to be close and personal with people.
19.
I generally know what type of behavior is
appropriate in any given situation.
20.
I usually do not make unusual demands on my
friends.
21.
I am an effective conversationalist.
22.
I am support of others.
23.
I do not mind meeting strangers.
24.
I can easily put myself in another person’s shoes.
25.
I pay attention to the conversation.
26.
I am generally relaxed when conversing with a new
acquaintance.
27.
I am interested in what others have to say.
28.
I don’t follow the conversation very well.
29.
I enjoy social gatherings where I can meet new
people.
30.
I am a likeable person.
31.
I am flexible.
32.
I am not afraid to speak with people in authority.
33.
People can come to me with their problems.
34.
I generally say the right thing at the right time.
35.
I like to use my voice and body expressively.
36.
I am sensitive to others’ needs of the moment.
Note:
Items 4, 8, 11, 12, and 28 are reverse-coded before summing the 36 items.
This has been modified for self-report.
Return to
Top
Appendix C
Rathus Assertiveness Schedule
Directions: Indicate how
characteristic or descriptive each of the following statements is of you by
using the code given below.
+3 very characteristic of me,
extremely descriptivea
+2 rather characteristic of me, quite descriptive
+1 somewhat characteristic of me, slightly descriptive
-1 somewhat uncharacteristic of me, slightly nondescriptive
-2 rather uncharacteristic of me, quite nondescriptive
-3 very uncharacteristic of me, extremely nondescriptive
1. Most people seem to be more
aggressive and assertive than I am.*
2. I have hesitated to make or accept dates because of “shyness.”*
3. When the food served at a restaurant is not done to my satisfaction, I
complain about it to the waiter or waitress.
4. I am careful to avoid hurting other people’s feelings, even when I feel
that I have been injured.*
5. If a salesman has gone to considerable trouble to show me merchandise
which iis not quite suitable, I have a difficult time in saying “No.”*
6. When I am asked to do something, I insist upon knowing why.
7. There are times when I look for a good, vigorous argument.
8. I strive to get ahead as well as most people in my position.
9. To be honest, people often take advantage of me.*
10. I enjoy starting conversations with new acquaintances and strangers.
11. I often don’t know what to say to attractive persons of the opposite
sex.*
12. I will hesitate to make phone calls to business establishments and
institutions.*
13. I would rather apply for a job or for admission to a college by writing
letters than by going through with personal interviews.*
14. I find it embarrassing to return merchandise.*
15. If a close and respected relative were annoying me, I would smother my
feelings rather than express my annoyance.*
16. I have avoided asking questions for fear of sounding stupid.*
17. During an argument I am sometimes afraid that I will get so upset that I
will shake all over.*
18. If a famed and respected lecturer makes a statement which I think is
incorrect, I will have the audience hear my point of view as well.
19. I avoid arguing over prices with clerks and salesmen.*
20. When I have done something important or worthwhile, I manage to let
others know about it.
21. I am open and frank about my feelings.
22. If someone has been spreading false and bad stories about me, I see him
(her) as soon as possible to “have a talk” about it.
23. I often have a hard time saying “No,”*
24. I ten to bottle up my emotions rather than make a scene.*
25. I complain about poor service in a restaurant and elsewhere.
26. When I am given a compliment, I sometimes just don’t know what to say.*
27. If a couple near me in a theatre or at a lecture were conversing rather
loudly, I would ask them to be quiet or to take their conversation
elsewhere.
28. Anyone attempting to push ahead of me in a line is in for a good battle.
29. I am quick to express an opinion.
30. There are times when I just can’t say anything.*
a Total score obtained by
adding numerical responses to each item, after changing the signs of
reversed items.
* Reversed item.
Return to
Top
Appendix D
Interaction Involvement Scale
Number of Questions: 18
Aprox .Time Required to Complete:6 minutes
Instructions: This questionnaire is designed to
provide information about how people communicate. There are no right or
wrong answers to any of the items. You only need to indicate the extent to
which you feel each item describes your own behavior.
In responding to some of
the items, you might say, "sometimes I do that and sometimes I don't." You
should respond to each item in a way that best describes your typical manner
of communication -- how you behave in most situations. If you cannot decide
how a particular item applies to you circle the "not sure" alternative.
however, please be sure to respond to all of the items.
Choose one alternative for
each item that best characterizes your communication in general by circling
your response.
1. I am keenly aware of
how others perceive me during my conversations.
Not at all
Somewhat Not Sure Somewhat Like Me
Very Much
Like Me Unlike Me
Like Me Like Me
2. My mind wanders during
conversations and I often miss parts of what is going on.
Not at all
Somewhat Not Sure Somewhat Like Me
Very Much
Like Me Unlike Me
Like Me Like Me
3. Often in conversations
I'm not sure what to say, I can't seam to find the appropriate lines.
Not at all
Somewhat Not Sure Somewhat Like Me
Very Much
Like Me Unlike Me
Like Me Like Me
4. I am very observant of
others' reactions while I'm speaking.
Not at all
Somewhat Not Sure Somewhat Like Me
Very Much
Like Me Unlike Me
Like Me Like Me
5. During conversations I
listen carefully to others and obtain as much information as I can.
Not at all
Somewhat Not Sure Somewhat Like Me
Very Much
Like Me Unlike Me
Like Me Like Me
6. Often in conversations
I'm not sure what my role is, I'm not sure how I'm expected to relate to
others.
Not at all
Somewhat Not Sure Somewhat Like Me
Very Much
Like Me Unlike Me
Like Me Like Me
7. Often in conversations
I will pretend to be listening, when in fact I was thinking of something
else.
Not at all
Somewhat Not Sure Somewhat Like Me
Very Much
Like Me Unlike Me
Like Me Like Me
8. Often during
conversations I feel like I know what should be said (like accepting a
compliment, or asking a question), but I hesitate to do so.
Not at all
Somewhat Not Sure Somewhat Like Me
Very Much
Like Me Unlike Me
Like Me Like Me
9. Sometimes during
conversations I'm not sure what the other really means or intends by certain
comments.
Not at all
Somewhat Not Sure Somewhat Like Me
Very Much
Like Me Unlike Me
Like Me Like Me
10. I carefully observe
how the other is responding to me during a conversation.
Not at all
Somewhat Not Sure Somewhat Like Me
Very Much
Like Me Unlike Me
Like Me Like Me
11. Often I feel
withdrawn or distant during conversations.
Not at all
Somewhat Not Sure Somewhat Like Me
Very Much
Like Me Unlike Me
Like Me Like Me
12. Often in
conversations I'm not sure what others' needs are (e.g. a compliment,
reassurance, etc.) until it is too late to respond appropriately.
Not at all
Somewhat Not Sure Somewhat Like Me
Very Much
Like Me Unlike Me
Like Me Like Me
13. I feel confident
during my conversations, I am sure of what to say and do.
Not at all
Somewhat Not Sure Somewhat Like Me
Very Much
Like Me Unlike Me
Like Me Like Me
14. Often I'm preoccupied
in my conversations and do not pay complete attention to others.
Not at all
Somewhat Not Sure Somewhat Like Me
Very Much
Like Me Unlike Me
Like Me Like Me
15. Often I feel sort of
"unplugged" during conversations, I am uncertain of my role, others'
motives, and what is happening.
Not at all
Somewhat Not Sure Somewhat Like Me
Very Much
Like Me Unlike Me
Like Me Like Me
16. In my conversations I
often do not accurately perceive others' intentions or motivations.
Not at all
Somewhat Not Sure Somewhat Like Me
Very Much
Like Me Unlike Me
Like Me Like Me
17. In conversations I am
very perceptive to the meaning of my partner's behavior in relation to
myself and the situation.
Not at all
Somewhat Not Sure Somewhat Like Me
Very Much
Like Me Unlike Me
Like Me Like Me
18. Often during my
conversation I can't think of what to say, I just don't react quickly
enough.
Not at all
Somewhat Not Sure Somewhat Like Me
Very Much
Like Me Unlike Me
Like Me Like Me
Return to
Top
|
