Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Zur Wahrnehmung von Einheit und Handlungsvermögen kollektiver Entitäten im Kommunikationsmanagement: Vorschlag eines ‚Entity-Agent Framework‘

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Strategische Kommunikation im Spannungsfeld zwischen Intention und Emergenz

Part of the book series: Organisationskommunikation ((ORGKOM))

Zusammenfassung

Durch ihre relative Nähe zur Praxis und das übergeordnete Interesse an Fragen des Managements und der Messung strategischer Kommunikation tendieren Forschungsarbeiten zum Kommunikationsmanagement dazu, kollektive Entitäten wie Unternehmen, Parteien oder Verbände als mehr oder weniger natürlich gegebene Akteure vorauszusetzen. So wird diesen zumeist ein gewisses Maß an Einheit und Handlungsvermögen unterstellt. Während im benachbarten Feld der Organisationskommunikationsforschung theoretische wie empirische Dekonstruktionen zu Einheit und Handlungsvermögen kollektiver Entitäten vorliegen, zeigt sich in den eher funktionalistischen Forschungsprogrammen im Kommunikationsmanagement eine gewisse Zurückhaltung, wenn es darum geht, diese Entitäten als variable Konstrukte zu fassen. Der vorliegende Beitrag geht der Frage nach, wie sich dieser Aspekt der Variabilität in einem Forschungsfeld bearbeiten lässt, das PR als Managementfunktion begreift und vor allem funktionale Dimensionen strategischer Kommunikation fokussiert. Hierzu wird ein begrifflicher Bezugsrahmen entwickelt, der es erlaubt, Fragen der Wahrnehmung von Einheit und Handlungsvermögen im Kontext zentraler Zielvariablen des Kommunikationsmanagements (wie Image, Reputation, Vertrauen oder Krisenattribution) zu erforschen. Die Relevanz des Bezugsrahmens wird anhand aktueller empirischer Studien zu Effekten der Varianz in der Wahrnehmung kollektiver Entitäten auf Zielvariablen des Kommunikationsmanagements illustriert.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  • Abelson, R. P., Dasgupta, N., Park, J., & Banaji, M. R. (1998). Perceptions of the collective other. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 243–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Benoit-Barné, C., & Cooren, F. (2009). The accomplishment of authority through presentification: How authority is distributed among and negotiated by organizational members. Management Communication Quarterly, 23(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentele, G., & Seidenglanz, R. (2008). Trust and credibility – prerequisites for communication management. In A. Zerfass, B. van Ruler, & K. Sriramesh (Hrsg.), Public relations research: European and international perspectives and innovations (S. 49–62). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Botan, C. H., & Taylor, M. (2004). Public relations: State of the field. Journal of Communication, 54(4), 645–661.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B., Hong, Y., & Li, Q. (2004). Dynamic entitativity: Perceiving groups as actors. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Hrsg.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (S. 25–38). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buhmann, A. (2016a): Measuring country image. Theory, method, and effects. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buhmann, A. (2016b). The constitution and effects of country images: Theory and measurement of a central target construct in international public relations and public diplomacy. Studies in Communication Science, 16(2), 182–198.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buhmann, A., & Ingenhoff, D. (2015). The 4D model of the country image: An integrative approach from the perspective of communication management. International Communication Gazette, 77(1), 102–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3(1), 14–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Castano, E., Yzerbyt, V., & Bourguignon, D. (2003). We are one and i like it: The impact of ingroup entitativity on ingroup identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33(6), 735–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen, N. (2012). Branding national images: The 2008 Beijing Summer Olympics, 2010 Shanghai World Expo, and 2010 Guangzhou Asian Games. Public Relations Review, 38(5), 731–745.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, L. T., & Askegaard, S. (2001). Corporate identity and corporate image revisited – A semiotic perspective. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 292–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, L. T., & Cornelissen, J. (2011). Bridging corporate and organizational communication: Review, development and a look to the future. Management Communication Quarterly, 25(3), 383–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, L. T., & Langer, R. (2009). Public relations and the strategic use of transparency: Consistency, hypocrisy and corporate change. In R. L. Heath, E. L. Toth, & D. Waymer (Hrsg.), Rhetorical and critical approaches to public relations II (S. 129–153). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, L. T., Morsing, M., & Thyssen, O. (2013). CSR as aspirational talk. Organization, 20(3), 372–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cooren, F. (1999). The organizing property of communication. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooren, F., Kuhn, T., Cornelissen, J. P., & Clark, T. (2011). Communication, organizing and organization: An overview and introduction to the special issue. Organization Studies, 32(9), 1149–1170.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford, M. T., Sherman, S. J., & Hamilton, D. L. (2002). Perceived entitativity, stereotype formation, and the interchangeability of group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1076–1094.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredriksson, M., & Pallas, J. (2015). Strategic communication as institutional work. In D. R. Holtzhausen & A. Zerfass (Hrsg.), The Routledge handbook of strategic communication (S. 143–156). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, S. A. (2003). The essential child: Origins of essentialism in everyday thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, C. A. (2010). Evolutionary theory: The missing link for conceptualizing public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(4), 456–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D. L. (2007). Understanding the complexities of group perception: Broadening the domain. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(6), 1077–1101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (1996). Perceiving persons and groups. Psychological Review, 103(2), 336–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, D. L., Sherman, S. J., & Lickel, B. (1998). Perceptions of groups: The importance of the entitativity continuum. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler, & C. A. Insko (Hrsg.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior (S. 47–74). Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haslam, N., Rothschild, L., & Ernst, D. (2000). Essentialist beliefs about social categories. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39(1), 113–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work related values. Beverly Hills: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtzhausen, D. R., & Zerfass, A. (2013). Strategic communication – Pillars and perspectives on an alternate paradigm. In K. Sriramesh, A. Zerfass, & J. N. Kim (Hrsg.), Current trends and emerging topics in public relations and communication management (S. 283–302). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holtzhausen, D., & Zerfass, A. (2015). Strategic communication. Opportunities and challenges of the research area. In D. R. Holtzhausen & A. Zerfass (Hrsg.), The Routledge handbook of strategic communication (S. 3–17). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingenhoff, D., & Buhmann, A. (2015). Image transfer effects of corporate crisis on their home country image. The role of constructed entitativity. 18th Annual International Public Relations Research Conference (IPRRC), Miami, USA, 4.–8. März 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingenhoff, D., & Buhmann, A. (2016): The entity-agent-framework as a starting point for international public relations and public diplomacy research. In I. Somerville, O. Hargie, M. Taylor, & M. Toledano (Hrsg.), International public relations: Perspectives from deeply divided societies. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingenhoff, D., & Klein, S. (2016). Charisma or competence? Spillover-effects of political leader’s image on their home country’s image. Full paper at European Public Relations Education and Research Association (EUPRERA) Annual Conference, Groningen, 29. September–1. Oktober 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingenhoff, D., & Sommer, K. (2010). Trust in companies and in CEOs: A comparative study of the main influences. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3), 339–355.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kashima, Y. (2004). Culture, communication, and entitativity: A social psychological investigation of social reality. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Hrsg.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (S. 257–273). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kashima, Y., Kashima, E., Chiu, C.-Y., Farsides, T., Gelfand, M., Hong, Y.-Y., Kim, U., Strack, F., Werth, L., & Yzerbyt, V. (2005). Culture, essentialism, and agency: Are individuals universally believed to be more real entities than groups? European Journal of Social Psychology, 35(2), 147–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S. J., & Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 223–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., & Sherman, S. J. (2001). Elements of a lay theory of groups: Types of groups, relational styles, and the perception of group entitativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(2), 129–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lickel, B., Schmader, T., & Hamilton, D. L. (2003). A case of collective responsibility: Who else was to blame for the columbine high school shootings? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(2), 194–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menon, T., Morris, M. W., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1999). Culture and the construal of agency: Attribution to individual versus group dispositions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(5), 701–717.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. W., & Jepperson, R. L. (2000). The „actors“ of modern society: The cultural construction of social agency. Sociological Theory, 18(1), 100–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morris, M. W., Menon, T., & Ames, D. R. (2001). Culturally conferred conceptions of agency: A key to social perception of persons, groups, and other actors. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(2), 169–182. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0502_7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oh, M.-Y., & Ramaprasad, J. (2003). Halo effect: Conceptual definition and empirical exploration with regard to South Korean subsidiaries of US and Japanese multinational corporations. Journal of Communication Management, 7(4), 317–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, C. L. (2001). The effects of entitativity beliefs on implicit comparisons between group members. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(5), 515–525.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pickett, C. L., & Perrott, D. A. (2004). Shall I compare thee? Perceived entitativity and ease of comparison. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(3), 283–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, L., & Nicotera, A. M. (2009). Building theories of organization: The constitutive role of communication. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothbart, M., & Park, B. (2004). The mental representation of social categories: Category boundaries, entitativity, and steriotype change. In V. Yzerbyt, C. M. Judd, & O. Corneille (Hrsg.), The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity, and essentialism (S. 79–100). Philadelphia: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rydell, R. J., & McConnell, A. R. (2005). Perceptions of entitativity and attitude change. Personality and social psychology bulletin, 31(1), 99–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sallot, L. M., Lyon, L. J., Acosta-Alzuru, C., & Jones, K. O. (2003). From aardvark to zebra: A new millennium analysis of theory development in public relations academic journals. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15(1), 27–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schoeneborn, D., Vásquez, C., & Cornelissen, J. (2016). Imagining organization through metaphor and metonymy: Unpacking the process-entity paradox. Human Relations, 69(4), 915–944.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stern, L. D., Marrs, S., Millar, M. G., & Cole, E. (1984). Processing time and the recall of inconsistent and consistent behaviors of individuals and groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(2), 253–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J. R., & Every, E. J. V. (2000). The emergent organization: Communication as its site and surface. Mahwah: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vasquez, G. M., & Taylor, M. (2000). Public relations: An emerging social science enters the new millennium. In W. B. Gudykunst (Hrsg.), Communication yearbook (Bd. 24, S. 319–342). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wehmeier, S., & Raaz, O. (2012). Transparency matters: The concept of organizational transparency in the academic discourse. Public Relations Inquiry, 1(3), 337–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wehmeier, S., & Winkler, P. (2013). Expanding the bridge, minimizing the gaps public relations, organizational communication, and the idea that communication constitutes organization. Management Communication Quarterly, 27(2), 280–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, B., Stavros, C., & Westberg, K. (2008). Player transgressions and the management of the sport sponsor relationship. Public Relations Review, 34(3), 99–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yzerbyt, V., Castano, E., Leyens, J.-P., & Paladino, M.-P. (2000). The primacy of the ingroup: The interplay of entitativity and identification. European Review of Social Psychology, 11(1), 257–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yzerbyt, V., Corneille, O., & Estrada, C. (2001). The interplay of subjective essentialism and entitativity in the formation of stereotypes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(2), 141–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yzerbyt, V., Judd, C. M., & Corneille, O. (Hrsg.). (2004). The psychology of group perception: Perceived variability, entitativity and essentialism. New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerfass, A., & Holtzhausen, D. R. (2015). Introduction. In D. R. Holtzhausen & A. Zerfass (Hrsg.), The Routledge handbook of strategic communication (S. xx–xxiv). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zerfass, A., Rademacher, L., & Wehmeier, S. (Hrsg.). (2013). Organisationskommunikation und Public Relations. Forschungsparadigmen und neue Perspektiven. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department for Communication and Culture, BI Norwegian Business School, Oslo, Norwegen

    Alexander Buhmann

  2. DCM Departement für Kommunikations- und Medienforschung, Universität Fribourg, Fribourg, Schweiz

    Diana Ingenhoff

Authors
  1. Alexander Buhmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Diana Ingenhoff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alexander Buhmann .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Institut für Politik- und Kommunikationswissenschaft, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald, Greifswald, Austria

    Stefan Wehmeier

  2. Department of Management, Society & Communication, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark

    Dennis Schoeneborn

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Buhmann, A., Ingenhoff, D. (2018). Zur Wahrnehmung von Einheit und Handlungsvermögen kollektiver Entitäten im Kommunikationsmanagement: Vorschlag eines ‚Entity-Agent Framework‘. In: Wehmeier, S., Schoeneborn, D. (eds) Strategische Kommunikation im Spannungsfeld zwischen Intention und Emergenz. Organisationskommunikation. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17634-1_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-17634-1_8

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-658-17633-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-658-17634-1

  • eBook Packages: Social Science and Law (German Language)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation