1. The document examines the concept of "relationship identity" in public relations research and raises concerns about its accuracy and implications. 2. It notes that organization-stakeholder relationships are more instrumental than interpersonal relationships and lack co-construction of shared meaning. Stakeholder identities are also multiple and fluid. 3. Close relationships with organizations are the exception, not the rule, and an overemphasis on strong relationships could harm stakeholders by precluding recognition of problems or seeking alternative relationships. Organization-stakeholder interactions are often more accurately described as one-sided "parasocial relationships."

1. Public Relations’
“Relationship Identity” in
Research: Enlightenment or
Illusion
W.Timothy Coombs, Ph.D.
Sherry J. Holladay, Ph.D.
University of Central Florida, U.S.A.
2 July 2013

2. An Identity for PR Research
• “Relationship Identity” for general public relations
research
• Does it enlighten the field?

3. Concerns
1. Translation from interpersonal communication research
2. Reality of multiple & shifting identities
3. Assumption of close relationships with stakeholders
4. Organization-stakeholder relationships as parasocial
relationships

4. The “Relationship Identity”
of PR Research
• Relationship management theory
• OPR, OPRA, & MBR: dominant outcome variable
• PR’s value: the ability to cultivate & maintain close
relationships

5. 1.Translation from Interpersonal
Communication Research
• Closer to impersonal than interpersonal relationships
• More instrumental than consumatory; contrasts with
interpersonal relationships
• Lack of attention to shared meaning (co-construction)

6. 2. Multiple Identities
• Close relationships built on shared identity with
organization
• Identities are fragmented, multiple, & fluid for most
people
• Close relationships with organizations are the exception
rather than the rule

7. 3. Close Relationship Emphasis
• Strong relationships are tied to other desired outcomes
for organizations
• Rewards for stakeholders are unclear
• Strong relational commitment may harm stakeholders
A strong organization-public relationship
may preclude people from recognizing the
problems in the relationship and may
prevent them from seeking other, more
beneficial, relationships.

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

9. Parasocial Relationships
• Social media primarily provide pseudo-interactions
• Stakeholders post comments
• Question-response
• False notion that people “become part of the
conversation”

10. Illusion over Enlightenment
• Distorted metaphor; monetizing relationships is true
emphasis
• Neglect to understand weak ties—how the majority of
stakeholders relate to organizations
• Hyped interactive nature of social media fuels parasocial
interaction (one-sided relationships)

11. Conclusion
• Claiming stakeholder-organization relationships are similar to
interpersonal relationships is problematic
• Describing relationships as parasocial interactions is generally
more accurate & potentially informative
• True nature of relationships
• Honest recognition of one-sided nature
• Potential insights from this view of relationship