PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 1

Social Distance in Russian Public Relations Students Perceptions of Ethical Issues

A perfect storm of unethical practices in public relations recently produced another round of high profile media coverage of the profession in the U.S. (Phair, 2005). These incidents, ranging from VNR controversies, to PR agency payments to city officials, to failing to disclose payments for advocacy, underscore the importance of ethics to public relations scholars, practitioners and educators, as well as the general public. In recent years, scholars and practitioners have paid increasing attention to ethical frameworks in decision making and to codifying ethics in practice. Yet, few studies have

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 2 examined perceptions of ethics on the part of public relations students, especially outside of the U.S. This study explores this important topic through the perceptions of Russian public relations students and within the theoretical perspective of social distance (Perloff, 1993). Compared to the United States, public relations in Russia is a relatively new occupation, not yet 20 years old. Though influenced by Western approaches, Russian public relations practice has distinct features based on the countrys historical, cultural, and political background. In this regard, the present study might be considered an investigation of how two schools of public relationsWestern and Russianare intertwined and are being absorbed by Russian public relations students. The authors argue that the perception of ethics by future professionals is crucial in understanding how they will position themselves in the public relations profession. Overall, this study found that Russian public relations students acknowledged the importance of ethics in their school curricula, which supports the idea that studying ethics in college may lead to better ethics in professional practice (Gale & Bunton, 2005). The participants also agreed that public relations leadership and ethics are inseparable. However, compared to perceptions of themselves, the participants' views of the ethicality of "other Russian PR students" and "American PR students" were less favorable, thought strikingly similar to each other. This finding suggests that the third person effect is a robust phenomenon that challenges the notion of social and cultural connectedness which presumably exists between the participants and other Russian PR students.

Scholarship on Ethics and Public Relations

Public relations scholars have suggested a variety of ethical frameworks and models to bring ethical criteria to strategic decision-making processes in organizations. Edgett (2002) proposed 10 criteria for ethical advocacy. David (2004) outlined a framework by which to evaluate professional values in public relations. Bowen suggested models for ethical issues

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 3 management (2004) and for ethical decision-making (2005a). These and other theorists (e.g., Grunig, Grunig, & Dozier, 2002) contend that ethical practices help organizations do the right things in society, build trust with stakeholders, and strengthen the profession. Ethical frameworks are often divided into two broad categories: teleological and deontological. A teleological framework is one in which ethical actions are those that result in the greatest good (Curtin & Boynton, 2001, p. 411). Utilitarianism or consequentialist theory are forms of teleology. Utilitarianism takes a societal view, suggesting that ethical decisions are those that have the greatest impact on society at large (Bowen, 2005a). Philosophy and ethics scholar Sissela Bok (1989) wrote, For utilitarians, an act is more or less justifiable according to the goodness or badness of its consequences (p. 48). Consequentialism is a broader perspective that asks us to predict the possible outcomes of our decisions and perform a cost-benefit calculation among potential outcomes. The ethical outcome is that which generally has the most positive consequences and the least negative consequences (Bowen, 2005a, p. 296). Deontological frameworks are rules-based. Deontologists subscribe to the idea that there are universal moral principles that must be followed. Professional codes of ethics such as those by the Public Relations Society of America (PRSA) or the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) are examples of deontological frameworks. However, practitioners are not always seen to play important roles in ethical decision making. Fitzpatrick (1996) found that public relations remains a relatively untapped resource in ethics programs (p. 249). The highest percentage of ethics officers in U.S. companies she surveyed cited law as their primary field of responsibility (27.9% of respondents), and only 6.7% cited public relations as their primary field. Of those companies that had established ethics committees, only 11.5% of those committees included public relations representatives. In

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 4 addition, public relations counsel was cited as least important when ethics officers were asked to rate the importance of various sources in helping them reach ethical decisions (p. 253). The Profession Professional public relations associations have long emphasized the need for ethical practice through codes, accreditation measures, training programs and other means, and such efforts appear to have accelerated. The most recent PRSA Code of Ethics, for example, is introduced with this statement: Ethical practice is the most important obligation of a PRSA member (PRSA Member Code of Ethics, p. 5). The PRSA code is founded on professional values of advocacy, honesty, expertise, independence, loyalty and fairness, and the document concludes by asking professionals to work constantly to strengthen the publics trust in the profession (p. 13). Many researchers and practitioners have pointed to well-known shortcomings of existing codes of ethics, including the general nature of their provisions, lack of enforcement measures and cultural differences. Nevertheless, at least one recent development suggests such codes are expanding globally. The Global Alliance for Public Relations and Communication Management, founded in 2000, consists of more than 60 member organizations that represent more than 150,000 practitioners internationally (Molleda, 2004). One of the alliances first initiatives was development of a protocol to standardize the various codes of ethics in the profession (Worldwide standard, 2003). Another issue is differences among practitioners regarding professional ethics. In a study funded by IABC, Bowen (2005b) found significant differences between men and women regarding ethics training, ethical issues and preferred styles of moral discussion. Kim and Choi (2003) concluded from their survey of practitioners that ethical standards appeared to change with age and ideology. Wright (1985) found that the level of ethical standards increased with age

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 5 among PR practitioners and business professionals. Individual professionals also may see themselves as more ethical than other PR practitionersa type of third-person effect. Sallot, Cameron, and Lariscy (1998) found that practitioners hold their peers in comparatively low esteem, seeing them as unprofessional and unenlightened compared to the way they view themselves. Practitioners see themselves individually as having higher status, being more accountable, and having more professional skills in strategic planning and research than their peers (p. 14). Berger and Reber (2005) found that 15 of 65 practitioners they interviewed admitted to having leaked information to external publics, planted rumors in the grapevine, or used similar tactics that may blur ethical boundaries. However, nearly twice as many (29) of those interviewed said they thought other practitioners used such techniques. Education Increasing attention has been devoted to the importance of teaching professional ethics in education, and to what ought to be taught (Gale & Bunton, 2005). Harrison (1990) surveyed public relations and advertising professors and found nearly all of the educators believed that studying ethics was important for their students. The report of the 1999 Commission on Public Relations Education outlined areas of knowledge that graduates of PR programs should understand, and ethical issues was one of them (Commission on Public Relations Education, 1999). The Commission also recommended that students be competent in many skill areas: research, management of information and communication, written and oral communication, problem solving, strategic planning, issues management, audience segmentation, technology and visual literacy, managing people and resources and ethical decision-making (p. 20). VanSlyke Turk (1989) surveyed practitioners regarding public relations curricula and

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 6 found that they believed the top five skills for success as a manager in public relations were planning and organizing, problem solving and decision making, goal setting and prioritizing, time management, and ethical and legal issues. Toth (1999) reported that educators and practitioners agreed that ethics and codes of practice were one of a number of important areas of study in public relations. One recent study examined the impact of ethics instruction (Gale & Bunton, 2005). The researchers surveyed 242 alumni with majors in public relations or advertising and found that graduates who had completed a media ethics course were more likely than those who had not to value ethics more highly, better identify ethical issues, and deem ethical issues to be important in their professional work. Despite increasing research into ethics in public relations, we still know relatively little about ethics pedagogies or practices in the classroom in the U.S. or any country. We know even less about students knowledge or perceptions of professional ethics. This study contributes to the literature by exploring perceptions of Russian public relations students regarding their own understanding of ethics versus those of other Russian and American students. Public Relations Education in Russia Since the mid 1990s in Russia, the occupation of public relations manager turned from being very popular and profitable (Tsetsura, 1999) to prestigious and fashionable (Sovetnik, 2005a). Today, the competition among Russian high school graduates to be accepted into a university public relations program is intense, often with five applicants or more for each opening. A public relations career is as desirable now as the traditionally attractive occupations of economist and lawyer. As one Russian practitioner noted, Weve done too much PR for PR (Fedorova & Ogar, 2002). However, this growth in public relations education has been accompanied by some

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 7 difficulties. Fedorova and Ogar (2002) found in their survey of 537 public relations students and professionals that, as a rule, a Russian university had only one or two qualified public relations teachers, and only 3% of the faculty had any experience in the public relations field. In addition, nearly half of the surveyed students said that they were not satisfied with the quality of teaching in their departments, and about two-thirds noted a lack of good textbooks. The researchers also found that 70% of public relations students surveyed held full- or part time jobs, and working students appeared to be motivated more by the desire to acquire professional experience than to earn money. Interestingly, 44% of survey participants considered public relations a social science discipline, and 96% wanted to continue raising their level of education after graduation. A more recent study (Sovetnik, 2005b) found that the majority of Russian public relations practitioners they surveyed consider the opportunity for self-realization in a creative manner to be the most attractive trait of their occupation. This finding indicates that despite the fact that teachers actively use foreign sources in the educational process (Fedorova & Ogar, 2002), public relations in Russia is viewed as an activity with an artistic spirit rather than simply a job with a strong technological component, which may be more the perception in the U.S. and Western Europe. Russian practitioners said their practice is based on intuition, whereas the Western practice is based more on methodology (Sovetnik, 2004). However, at least quarter of Russian practitioners said they did not possess sufficient skills in the use of PR technologies (Sovetnik, 2005b). In another study (Sovetnik, 2004), about one-third of the student participants wanted to learn more about public relations practice in the United States, which they consider the founder of public relations and the leader of PR practice. In the same survey, 28% of participants indicated they were willing to go to the United States for an internship. As for students of public relations departments of Russian universities, many of them spend summers participating in the Work and Travel USA program, where they

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 8 become familiar with American culture. Perceptions of Public Relations Ethics in Russia Public relations practice consists of a range of acts and actions that presumably lead to establishing mutually beneficial relations between a company and public. Yet, as Bakhtin (1993) noted, [T]he irreproachable technical correctness of a performed act does not yet decide the matter of its moral value (p. 4). Another Russian scholar (Bodalev, 1995) pointed out that moral development is determined not only by knowledge of ethical norms but also spiritual beliefs, the personal values, attitudes, and any corresponding behaviors. Discussing public relations ethics, Russian scholars think that modern public relations is practical philosophy of morality of modern Russian business (Sinepol & Shkolnikov, 2002). In other words, the public relations sphere reflects the complexity of nascent capitalistic relations in the country. Importantly, the market-driven economy with its derivative a developed PR system might conflict the Russian mass consciousness because, according to Tulchnsky (2001), PR does not fit well the Russian Orthodox experience. To focus on enhancing an organizations image, for example, might be seen by Russians as an effort to hide a real face, or to put on a mask. Moreover, because of cynical manipulation and political propaganda performed at the initial stage of development of public relations in the 1990s, PR in Russia has become associated with black PR, which refers to dirty tricks towards opponents and various forms of deception. Perhaps as a result of this negative connotation for public relations, there is a tendency in Russia today to rename academic departments from public relations departments to departments of communication management. Third-Person Effect and Social Distance Acknowledging the importance of ethics in public relations practice, the present study investigates Russian public relations students perceptions of ethical issues through the third-

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 9 person effect (TPE). This phenomenonpeople generally perceive others to be more susceptible to media influence than they arewas first defined and investigated by Davison (1983). Since then, much research has born out Davidsons (1983) statement that in the view of those trying to evaluate the effects of communication, its greatest impact will not be on me or you, but on themthe third persons (p. 3). Although me and you are put in one category, it is implied that some degree of distance exists between self and such close others as friends and lovers (Tsfati & Cohen, 2004). More explicit remoteness exists between me and you as a single unit and them, or others. The notion of social distance was first introduced by the sociologist Emory Bogardus (1925), who referred to it as the degrees and grades of understanding and feeling that persons experience regarding each other (p. 299). Considering the social distance phenomenon as an aspect of Davisons (1983) third-person perception, Perloff (1993) articulated the notion of psychological distance as a complex variable including perceived similarity, familiarity, and identification and pointed out two different ways to conceptualize psychological distance. First, social distance falls along a continuum going from just like me to not at all like me (p. 175). Second, social distance reflects the heterogeneity and size of the audience or group (pp. 175-176). Perloff (1993) noted that researchers studying the social distance phenomenon have not made explicit the fact that social distance can be conceptualized and measured in different ways. Nevertheless, Perloff (1993), reviewing 16 studies of the thirdperson effect, acknowledged that the TPE is magnified when the hypothetical others are defined in broad and global terms (p. 176). Thus, in Perloffs (2002) terms, a social distance corollary is the notion that self-other disparities grow in magnitude with increases in perceived distance between self and comparison others (p. 497). To measure estimates of effect on self and others, Brosius and Engel (1996) constructed a

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 10 questionnaire with three independent variables: 1) first person, 2) third person, close distance, and 3) third person, remote distance. In varying the psychological distance, the researchers found that perceived effects were greater for remote others. They also found that third-person effects are found to be most strong among people of higher age and education (p. 160). Cohen, Mutz, Price, and Gunther (1988) found that Stanford students perceived media effects to be less on themselves than on other Stanford students; also, other Californians were considered to be more susceptible to media impact than other Stanford students (p. 169). A similar study (Gunther, 1991) was done at the University of Minnesota, and the social distance phenomenon was supported. As groups became more broadly defined (other University of Minnesota students, other Minnesota residents), participants perception of media effects on the groups increased. Other studies yielded similar findings (e.g., Duck, Hogg, & Terry, 1995; Gibbon & Durkin, 1995; White, 1997). Investigating the third-person effect in regard to political identification, Duck et al. (1995) found that perception of self-other differences in media vulnerability are influenced by the subjectively salient social relationship between self and other, and are governed by motivational needs, such as self-esteem, social-identity, and differentiation from others (p.195). Other researchers (e.g., Burger, 1981; Schlenker & Miller, 1977) suggested that because of selfserving biases, a person considers close friends and relatives an extension of self, whereas such a vague category as other might evoke stereotypes in the mind (Perloff & Fetzer, 1986). After several studies, the notion of social distance was enshrined as the social distance corollary (Meirick, 2005). According to Perloffs (1999) review, of the 11 studies that have tested the social-distance notion, nine confirmed it, articulating this phenomenon as another factor on which the strength of the third-person effect hinges (p. 364). Within this theoretical framework, this study examines social distance as it is reflected in

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 11 the perceived ethicality between (a) Russian PR student survey respondents and generalized other Russian PR students; (b) survey respondents and generalized American PR students; and (c) generalized other Russian PR students and generalized American PR students. Eveland, Nathanson, Detenber and McLeod (1999) noted, There is a common tendency for individuals to express a self-serving out-group biasthat is, to evaluate ones own group more favorably than the out-group, which might be explained by the need for ego enhancement (p. 277). Also, Gunther and Thorson (1992) found that when people consider media content positive, they perceive the effects as being greater on themselves than on others. Accordingly, for this study, a growing concern about unethical public relations practice of some firms and individuals might prevent respondents from acknowledging their true degree of ethical awareness. Hypotheses Based on the TPE theory and previous research on the social distance corollary, the following three hypotheses were developed: H1: Survey respondents will perceive themselves as more ethical than other Russian PR students. H2: Survey respondents will perceive themselves as more ethical than American PR students. H3: Survey respondents will perceive generalized other Russian PR students as more ethical than American PR students.

Method
Participants Participants in the study were 206 public relations students in two Russian universities, with 480 and 250 public relations majors respectively. One hundred and twenty five students (19 males and 106 females) were surveyed in the first university, located in a city of 500,000 inhabitants, and 81 students (14 males and 67 females) were surveyed in the second university, which is located in a city with a population of about one million. Both cities are located in

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 12 Central Russia, and the universities were selected for practical reasons. The first city is the hometown of one of the researchers, which facilitated access to University students, while the second university was chosen because the head of the PR program there had participated in a previous research project and agreed to undertake another initiative. Thus, the sample was a convenience sample that included all students in selected PR classes where access was granted. Participant ages ranged from 17 to 26, with a mean of 19 years old (SD=1.53). The majority of participants (117/206) were 18 and 19 years old. The sample consisted of 55 freshmen, 63 sophomores, 40 juniors, 35 seniors, and 13 fifth year students (higher education in the Russian Federation requires completion of five years). The fact that only 16 percent of the overall participants in two studies were males reflects the general situation in the public relations field in Russia, where the majority of practitioners are women (Tsetsura, 2005). In addition, statistical data from the universities in which the surveys took place indicate that 21 percent of all students in the first university were male, and 15 percent of all students in the second university were male. Procedures and Questionnaire The survey required about 20 minutes to complete and was administered in university classrooms near the end of the spring semester, 2006. Thus, even first year students, who had not had an ethics course, had some awareness about aspects of public relations ethics after one year of study. Although various courses at both universities include discussions of ethics, a specially designed ethics course is mandatory for public relations majors in their third year of study. Most questions in the survey were used or adapted from the questionnaire developed by Gale and Bunton (2005) for their study of advertising and public relations graduates in the United States. Their research examined relationships between ethical awareness and ethical leadership for graduates who had completed a course in ethics versus those who had not. The

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 13 researchers found that graduates who had completed such a course were more likely to value ethics highly and to discuss ethical issues with colleagues. The questionnaire included two parts. The first one consisted of 10 sets of questions (three questions in each), and the wording was identical except for the first (self), second (other Russian PR students), or third-person (American PR students) connotation. For example, in the first set, the question about self was phrased, To me, ethics is a very important topic for discussion in public relations courses. The other Russians question stated, To other Russian PR students, ethics is a very important topic for discussion in public relations courses. The third question in the set was phrased, To American PR students, ethics is a very important topic for discussion in public relations courses. On a 5-point, Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 5 (Strongly Agree), respondents were asked to report their perceptions about various aspects of public relations ethics, as well as their perceptions about how other Russian PR students and American PR students might perceive these issues. The third-person effect was thus explored in this way. In addition to the survey questions based on Gale and Bunton (2005), the second part of the questionnaire included three open-ended questions to provide participants with an opportunity to express their thoughts about ethics in public relations leadership. Qualitative assessment of these questions will be included in a subsequent paper. Though the majority of the participants spoke English, the questionnaire was translated into Russian by one of the researchers to enhance understanding of the questions. Two Russian professional journalists then examined the text independently and offered several suggestions for improvements, which were incorporated into the final survey instrument.

Results
A one-way ANOVA test with self, other Russian PR students, and American PR students

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 14 as three levels of the independent variable, was used to determine the significance of the effects between comparison groups. A total of 10 tests were conducted; the significance level established for all tests was .05. Hypothesis 1 predicted that in regard to ethical issues, the perceived effects on self would be more than the perceived effects on other Russian PR students. This hypothesis was supported. The means in Table 1 present a strong pattern in the perception of self as more ethical than generalized Russian counterparts. There were statistically significant differences in each test with self versus other Russian PR students. The second hypothesis predicted that respondents would perceive themselves as more ethical than American PR students. The means on Table 1 indicates a pattern that generally supports hypothesis 2: nine of ten tests were statistically significant. The test that did not yield a statistically significant difference concerned perceptions of personal and professional ethics as an indistinguishable phenomenon (set of questions #6), F (2,62) = 78.68, p < .05. Hypothesis 3 predicted that respondents would perceive other Russian PR students as more ethical than American PR students. This hypothesis was not supported. Only one of 10 tests was statistically significant, and, as indicated by Table 1, six of the nine non significant tests were in the predicted direction. Thus, surveyed Russian PR students did not distinguish between generalized other Russian PR students and American PR students. T-tests did not indicate significant differences based on respondent demographics such as age, level of education and completion of a course in ethics. In addition, answers did not differ significantly between students at the two Russian universities. However, several significant differences were found by gender. For example, more females than males said that ethics were not cut and dried when participants evaluated other Russian PR students perceptions of this issue, t=2.10, p<.001. The same pattern was observed in females assessment of whether Russian

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 15 PR students in general think that business ethics and personal ethics are two different things, t=2.03, p<.001. In the last set of questions, evaluating self and other Russians questions, female participants more strongly than male participants supported the assumption that a PR leader who obeys ethical rules will have greater professional success, t=-2.24, p<.001 and t=2.13, p<.001 accordingly. Table 1 Mean Ratings of Perceived Ethicality of the Students (n=206) Person(s) ____________________________________________ Self Other Americans Russians M SD M SD M SD F(2.62)

Questions

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________________

1.Ethics is a very important topic for discussion in PR courses. 2. Studying ethics in college leads to better ethics in PR. 3. Drawing on ideas learned in ethics classes makes it easier to talk about unethical practices with others. 4. Studying ethics helps develop tools for reasoning through ethical dilemmas. 5. Ethics is cut and dry, not situation specific. 6.Business ethics and personal ethics are two different things. 7. The management of a company should 3.5 1.1 3.2 0.7 3.3 0.7 4.11 2.0 0.7 2.7 0.8 2.9 0.7 78.68 3.9 0.9 3.4 0.7 3.4 0.8 29.38 4.1 0.9 3.6 0.8 3.4 0.8 33.93 4.3 0.7 3.7 0.7 3.6 0.8 62.66 4.4 0.7 3.6 0.8 3.6 0.9 80.12

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 16 be concerned with the social impact of its actions. 8. In business if it is legal, its OK (ethical). 9. A PR-leader needs to be ethical in all relations with personnel and clients. 10. A PR-leader who obeys ethical rules will have greater professional success. 4.0 1.0 3.6 0.8 3.5 0.8 18.88 4.4 0.8 3.8 0.9 3.7 0.8 41.82 2.4 1.1 2.8 0.8 3.2 0.8 35.26 4.5 0.6 4.1 0.7 3.9 0.8 39.54

____________________________________________________________________________
Note. Responses were measured on a 5-point scale. Higher score means higher degree of ethicality.

Discussion
Brosius and Engel (1996) stated that the third-person effect is not dependent on whether there are media effects or not. It is a perceptual phenomenon (p. 143). It might be implied that while assessing vulnerability of others, people are unconsciously revealing their own susceptibility, which they do not admit if the question is self phrased. In this study, students agreed with positive statements designed to measure their perception of ethics and disagreed with the same statements related to others people, particularly, to Russian PR students in general. This is important because the two universities students served as virtual other Russians for each other while filling out the questionnaire. According to Brosius and Engel (1996), perception of similarity between oneself and a friend as an in-group member positively influences estimation of media effects. Although Russian counterparts cannot be taken as such psychologically close people as friends, there was

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 17 an assumption that participants would distinguish them more clearly from such psychologically distant others as American PR students. The reason for this assumption was that besides reading professional magazines about students life within the country, participants of the study communicate with other Russians while attending national public relations conferences and seminars and participating in student competitions. Thus, they have an opportunity to know Russian counterparts better and, presumably, develop the feeling of belonginess to one group of professionals. At the same time, participants demonstrated what Brosius and Engels (1996) called unrealistic optimism (p. 145), which is related to ego enhancement. According to Duck et al. (1995), the tendency to perceive self as invulnerable even in comparison with in-group members is consistent with the egocentric categorization model, which states that the cognitive differentiation between oneself and other people is much clearer than the cognitive differentiation between different others (p. 211). Consistent with this statement, participants of this study showed only a slight difference in perceived ethicality of other Russian and American public relations students. However, even though this result is consistent with the egocentric categorization model, there is still the need for a more in depth investigation of the situation from a cultural standpoint. For example, is it possible that a popular United States scale like the Likert-type, 5-point scale is too narrow for Russian students? Would it be more appropriate to use a 7- or even 10point scale? Also, some differences in teaching public relations courses might explain why participants distanced themselves from both groups of studentsRussian and American. For example, some PR instructors in Russia focus on theoretical aspects of ethics, believing that public relations professionals should be familiar with ethics of Socrates, Epicure, Kant, and other great thinkers. Other instructors concentrate on applied ethics, or how ethics are incorporated in

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 18 the everyday activities of professionals. In addition to course content differences, teachers also use a variety of pedagogies, which may affect student perceptions, attitudes, and understanding. Brosius and Engel (1996) suggested further that it is important to find out how the thirdperson effect connects with other identified self-other phenomena. They suggested that the false uniqueness effect should be considered as being related to third-person effect (p. 159160). This phenomenon is also known as false distinctiveness (Valins & Nisbett, 1972) and the uniqueness bias (Goethals, Messick, & Allison, 1991). According to Goethals et al. (1991), uniqueness bias is the tendency for people to underestimate the proportion of people who can or will perform desirable actions (p. 149). As a consequence, people in general perceive their own behaviors as either uniquely or uncommonly good. Studying high school students, Goethals et al. (1991), found that uniqueness bias was greater for advanced placement students than for students in regular classes. Since the public relations occupation is a prestigious one in Russia, it seems likely that participants in the present study would experience the same feeling of pride and uniqueness as the advanced placement students in Goethals et al. (1991) study did. Therefore, a perceived psychological distance between the participants and two groups of Russian and American students might be taken as a reflection of the special status of the public relations profession in the country. It is logical to ask, why didnt study participants include other Russians in the exceptional category when it came to evaluating their ethicality? One possible explanation stems from the negative perception of public relations in Russian society. Indeed, PR in Russia is a twofold phenomenon: it is highly desirable in spite of its questionable credibility. Public professionals still practice three types of PR: black, grey, and white. Black practice refers to unethical technologies, or as Bobrov (2005) put it, to manipulative forms of communication that presumes goals of agitation, whereas grey PR follows the rule, If it is not

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 19 prohibited by the law, it is permitted. Professionals, who practice white PR, are dedicated to professional norms that are based on ethics. It might be presumed that distinguishing themselves so obviously from generalized Russian PR students, the participants of the study distanced themselves from those who practice black and grey PR. Findings here also suggest the need to explore relations between the third-person effect and the Russian collectivist culture. According to Stephan and Stephan (1996), Collectivist cultures emphasize group over individual goals and regulate behavior through ingroup rather than individual norms. Collectivists are more likely than individualists to behave differently to ingroup than to outgroup members, regulate the behavior of ingroup members, and define the self in terms of the ingroup (p. 119). In the present study, the surveyed students demonstrated a reverse effect, showing that I is more important than we, which is routinely taken as a sign of individualistic cultures. However, even if a culture is distinguished as collectivistic, there still is room for varying degrees of individualism in self-perceptions (Markus & Kitayama, 1991). In the case under consideration, individualistic traits seem to be challenging such a fundamental dimension of collectivist cultures as connectedness. Future research is needed to determine if this effect is due to robustness and persuasiveness of the third person effect, or other factors, e.g., a negative shadow of PR-practice in the country may have made the participants distance themselves from other Russians. In regard to American PR students, perceived psychological distance might be explained by physical distance. In spite of the prevalence of American textbooks in school curricula, Russian students are being taught to be careful in applying foreign experiences to Russian practice (Bobrov, personal communication, September 17, 2006). Importantly, this process is going on against a country-wide background that emphasizes the national uniqueness of Russia,

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 20 which is explained by the need for an idea that will unite and strengthen the nation in the difficult period of political, economic, and social turbulence. The question that yielded the highest score in this study (M=4.5; SD=0.6) was positively phrased and asked the participants if the management of a company should be concerned with the social impact of its actions. The lowest score (M=2.0; SD=0.7) was received on a question that was negatively phrased was, Ethics is cut and dry, not situation specific. Importantly, both these scores were demonstrated in self-phrased tests. It appears that for the participants, it was less problematic to assess their own perceptions of the issues than to evaluate insights of others. This was evident during the administration of the survey, when some students articulated their uncertainty about others attitude toward ethics in public relations profession. Doubts were reduced by telling the participants that this survey was not so much about their concrete knowledge as about their perceptions. The only test that did not yield a statistically significant difference in perception of social distance between the participants and generalized American PR students concerned personal and professional ethics as an indistinguishable phenomenon (set of questions #6). Presumably, demonstrating less distance between themselves and Americans, the participants discriminated themselves from other Russians, who might have been associated with black PR. On the other hand, the only test that yielded a statistically significant difference in the pair, other Russians versus generalized Americans was phrased, In business if it is legal, its OK (ethical). Bobrov (personal communication, September 17, 2006), commenting on this result, suggested that Russian participants may have expressed a stereotyped perception of Americans as money and business oriented people. Consistent with previous research (Bowen, 2005b), this study found differences in the perceptions of ethics on the basis of gender. First, evaluating their own views, more female

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 21 participants than males said that professional success in PR leadership depends on adherence to ethical rules. Second, females revealed more favorable attitudes while assessing other Russian PR students perceptions of ethical issues in such sets of questions as Ethics is cut and dry, not situation specific, Business ethics and personal ethics are two different things, and A PRleader who obeys ethical rules will have greater professional success. No gender differences were found with regard to participants insights about generalized American PR students.

Conclusion
This study investigated whether Russian public relations students perceived themselves as different from other Russian public relations students and American public relations students with respect to professional ethics. The study shows that students perceived themselves as more ethical than the two other groups. The results also indicated a perceived social distance between the two pairs: surveyed studentsgeneral Russian students and surveyed studentsAmerican peers. However, there were no a substantial difference between these pairs. It might be assumed that in this research, two opposite phenomenagenerally negative perception of PR practice in the country and a high prestige of PR occupation, which results in the feeling of uniqueness of those who are study PRmagnify the third person effect by making the participants distance themselves substantially from others. Overall, the study found some evidence of the existence of the perceived social distance among Russian public relations students. Yet, the findings of this study cannot be generalized to the rest of the population because of the convenience sample. This research also examined perceptual variables rather than any actual measured ethicality. Nevertheless, it is useful to know how Russian students perceive themselves in regard to ethicality today, when concern about the lack of ethical behavior among many public relations practitioners in Russia is a contested issue. In addition, the study underscores the need for more

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 22 research focused on ethics instructioncourse content, effective pedagogies and outcomesin public relations educational programs if such programs do, in fact, favorably influence professional ethics.

References Bakhtin, M. M. (1993). Toward a philosophy of the act. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. Berger, B. K., & Reber, B. H. (2006). Gaining Influence in Public Relations: The Role of Resistance in Practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bobrov, V. A. (2005). Psikhologia i PR. [Psychology and PR]. In Aktualnue problemu svyazei s obshestvennostyu v sovremennom rossiskom obshestve (pp. 31-33). Penza: Izdatelstvo PGU. Bodalev, A. A. (1995). Lichnost I obshenie. [An individual and communication]. Moscow: Mezhdunarodnaya Pedagogicjeskaya Akademiya. Bogardus, E. S. (1925). Measuring social distances. Journal of Applied Sociology, 9, 299-308. Bok, S. (1989). Lying: Moral choice in public and private life. New York: Vintage Books.

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 23 Bowen, S. A. (2004). Expansion of ethics as the tenth generic principle of public relations excellence: A Kantian theory and model for managing ethical issues. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16, 65-92. Bowen, S. A. (2005a). A practical model for ethical decision making in issues management and public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 17, 191-216. Bowen, S. A. (2005b, June). Schism in Public Relations Ethics: Overview of Grant Research Findings. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Association of Business Communicators, Washington, DC. Brosius, H-B., & Engel, D. (1996). The causes of third-person effects: Unrealistic optimism, impersonal impact, or generalized negative attitudes toward media influence? International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 8, 142-162. Burger, J. M. (1981). Motivational biases in the attribution of responsibility for an accident: A meta-analysis of the defensive-attribution hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 496512. Cohen, J., Mutz, D., Price, V., & Gunther, A. (1988). Perceived impact of defamation. An experiment on third-person effect. Public Opinion Quarterly, 52, 161-173. Commission on Public Relations Education. (1999). Public Relations Education for the 21st Century: A Port of Entry. New York: Public Relations Society of America. Curtin, P. A. & Boynton, L. A. (2001). Ethics in public relations: Theory and practice. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 411-421). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. David, P. (2004). Extending symmetry: Toward a convergence of professionalism, practice, and pragmatics in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 16, 185-211. Davison, W. P. (1983). The third-person effect in communication. Public Opinion Quarterly, 47,

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 24 1-15. Duck, J. M., Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. J. (1995). Me, us, and them: Political identification and the third person effect in the 1993 Australian federal election. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 195-215. Edgett, R. (2002). Toward an ethical framework for advocacy in public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 14, 1-26. Eveland, W. P., Jr., Nathanson, A. T., Detenber, B. H., & McLeod, D. M. (1999). Rethinking the social distance corollary. Perceived likelihood of exposure and the third-person perception. Communication Research, 26, 275-302. Fedorova, L., & Ogar, I. (2002). Uroven podgotovki v rossiiskix vuzax budushix praktikov v sfere svyazei s obshestvennostyu. [The level of preparation of future PR practitioners in Russian universities]. Retrieved from August 29, 2006 from http://www.sovetnik.ru/research/?id=891. Fitzpatrick, K. R. (1996). The role of public relations in the institutionalization of ethics. Public Relations Review, 22, 249-258. Gale, K., & Bunton, K. (2005). Assessing the impact of ethics instruction on advertising and public relations graduates. Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 60, 272-285. Gibbon, P., & Durkin, K. (1995). The third person effect: Social distance and perceived media bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 597-602. Goethals, G. R., Messick, D. M., & Allison, S. T. (1991). The uniqueness bias: Studies of constructive social comparison. In J. Suls & T. A. Wills (Eds.), Social comparison: Contemporary theory and research (pp. 149-176). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 25 Gunther, A. C. (1991). What we think others think: Cause and consequence in the third person effect. Communication Research, 18, 355-372. Gunther, A. C., & Thorson, E. (1992). Perceived persuasive effects of product commercials and public service announcement: The third-person effects in new domains. Communication Research, 19, 574-596. Harrison, S. L. (1990). Pedagogical ethics for public relations and advertising. Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 5, 256-262. Kim, Y., & Choi, Y. (2003). Ethical standards appear to change with age and ideology: A survey of practitioners. Public Relations Review, 29, 79-89. Markus H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and self: Implication for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. Meirick, P. C. (2005). Rethinking the target corollary: The effect of social distance, perceived exposure, and perceived predispositions on first-person and third-person perception. Communication Research, 32, 822-843. Molleda, J. C. (2004). Partners in an alliance with a global reach. Public Relations Strategist, 10, 48-51. Phair, J. T. (2005, March). Regaining and retaining credibility amid changes and challenges to the profession. Public Relations Tactics, 12, 22. Perloff, R. M. (2002). The third-person effect. In J. Bryant & D. Zillman (Eds.), Media Effects. Advances in Theory and Research. (2nd ed., pp. 489-506). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Perloff, R. M. (1999). The third-person effect research: A critical review and synthesis. Media Psychology, 1, 353-378. Perloff, R. M. (1993). Third-person effect research 1983-1992: A review and synthesis.

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 26 International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 5, 167-184. Perloff, L. S., & Fetzer, B. K. (1986). Self-other judgments and perceived vulnerability to victimization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 502-510. PRSA Member Code of Ethics (October 2002). Retrieved May 3, 2005 from: http://www.prsa.org/_About/ethics/pdf/codeofethics.pdf?indent=eth10. Sallot, L. M., Cameron, G. T., & Weaver-Lariscy, R. A. (1998). PR educators and practitioners identify professional standards, Journalism & Mass Communication Educator, 53, 19-30.

Schlenker, B. R., & Miller, R. S. (1977). Egocentrism in groups: self-serving biases or logical information processing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 755-764. Sinepol, E., & Shkolnikov, Y. (2002). Chto takoe khorosho I chto takoe plokho v public relations. [What is good and what is bad in public relations]. PRpro. Retrieved August 29, 2006 from http://www.prpro.spb.ru/about_stud.php?what=publikacii&publik_id=6. Sovetnik, 2005a. Struktura sprosa I predlozhenii na runke truda PR-specialistov za 2004-2005 goda. [The structure of demand and offer in PR employment in 2004 and 2005]. Sovetnik. Retrieved August 29, 2006 from http://www.sovetnik.ru/research/?id=15330. Sovetnik, 2005b. Sovremennui rossiiskii PR-specialist: uroven kvalifikacii. [The modern Russian PR-professional: the level of qualification]. Retrieved August 29, 2006 from http://www.sovetnik.ru/research/?id=11954. Sovetnik, 2004. Sxodstva I razlichiya otechestvennux I zarubezhnux PR-kompanii. [Similarities and differences between Russian and foreign PR firms]. Retrieved August 29, 2006 from http://www.sovetnik.ru/research/?id=8482. Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1996). Intergroup relations. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 27 Toth, E. L. (1999). Models for instruction and curriculum, Public Relations Review, 25, 45-53. Tsetsura, K. (2005). Is public relations a real job? Constructing public relations as gendered profession. Conference paper submitted to the International Communication Association meeting in New York. Tsetsura, K. (1999). The role of female public relations practitioners in the development of public relations in Russia. Women and Language, 22, 50. Tsfati, Y., & Coneh, J. (2004). Object-subject distance and the third person effect. Media Psychology, 6, 353-361. Tulchinsky, G. (2001). PR I etika sovremennogo rossiskogo biznesa: osobennosti I perspektivy. PR and ethics of modern Russian business: Particularities and perspectives. PR News, #10. Retrieved December 15, 2005 from http://www.pr-news.spb.ru/publicat/n10/10_2.htm. VanSlyke Turk, J. (1989). Management skills need to be taught in public relations. Public Relations Review, 15, 38-52. Valins, S., & Nisbett, R. E. (1972). Attribution processes in the development and treatment of emotional disorders. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 17-150). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press. White, H. A. (1997). Considering interacting factors in the third-person effect: Argument strength and social distance. Journalism and Mass communication Quarterly, 74, 557564. Worldwide standard is in the works for PR ethics. (2003, Spring). The Public Relations Strategist, 12, 3. Wright, D. K. (1985). Age and the Moral Values of Practitioners. Public Relations Review, 11,

PR ETHICS IN RUSSIA 28 51-60.