USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Identification and measurement of two factors affecting the long-term outcomes of public relations programs, public imag...

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Identification and measurement of two factors affecting the long-term outcomes of public relations programs, public image and public trust
Physical Description:
Book
Language:
English
Creator:
Amendola, Kimberly B
Publisher:
University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla.
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
external stakeholder
public relations measurement
communication
organization-public relationship
email survey
Dissertations, Academic -- Mass Communications -- Masters -- USF   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Summary:
ABSTRACT: This study explores the most current theories surrounding organization-public relationship measurement, which is one approach used to verify the effectiveness of public relations programs. The study attempted to define and test two new factors that may affect organization-public relationships, which are identified as public image and public trust. Existing factors used to test such relationships, such as trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality, focus on testing the perceptions stakeholders have about an organization based upon their interpersonal relationship with that organization. However, in organizations where the dominant coalition still does not view public relations as a management function, use of the existing scales to measure the long-term effectiveness of public relations programs can be dangerous and inaccurate, especially when public relations practitioners are not responsible for creating, maintaining, or managing those organization-public relationships. A 65-item questionnaire was administered via email to a convenience sample of 5,799 stakeholders. A total of 1,193 completed questionnaires were received; however, a response rate could not be reported because the questionnaire was posted to a popular Internet site. The survey instrument tested new items for public image and public trust, as well as the existing relationship items of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality defined by Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999). Factor analysis defined two new indices for public image and public trust and Cronbach's alpha further supported the reliability of these measures. Also, Cronbach's alphas tested reliable for trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. However, when all items for public image, public trust, trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality were subject to factor analysis, all but four items weighted into one factor. This suggests the need to further explore new measurement tools for assessing the long-term effectiveness of public relations programs beyond the organization-public relationship.
Thesis:
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2004.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references.
System Details:
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
System Details:
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
Statement of Responsibility:
by Kimberly B. Amendola.
General Note:
Title from PDF of title page.
General Note:
Document formatted into pages; contains 107 pages.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001469362
oclc - 55537872
notis - AJR1116
usfldc doi - E14-SFE0000264
usfldc handle - e14.264
System ID:
SFS0024959:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

Identification and Measurement of Two Fact ors Affecting the LongTerm Outcomes of Public Relations Programs: Public Image and Public Trust by Kimberly B. Amendola A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Mass Communication College of Arts and Science University of South Florida Major Professor: Derina R. Holtzhausen, Ph.D. Kelly P. Werder, Ph.D. Kimberly Golombisky, Ph.D. Date of Approval: March 30, 2004 Keywords: public relations measuremen t, communication, organization-public relationship, email survey, external stakeholder Copyright 2004, Kimberly B. Amendola

PAGE 2

Dedication I dedicate this thesis to my fianc, Ch ristian Eichinger. Your unconditional love and support gave me the strength to finish this manuscript. Thank you for the shoulder messages, home cooked meals, and serenity. Furthermore, I dedicate this thesis to Dr. Derina Holtzhausen and Dr. Barbara K. Petersen, the two professors who most infl uenced my academic success. Your support and encouragement was everlasting from the moment I stepped into your offices. Your dedication to the field of public relations academia, and students is encouraging and positively contagious. Thank you for th e once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

PAGE 3

i Table of Contents List of Tables iii List of Figures iv Abstract v Chapter One: Introduction 1 Chapter Two: Literature Review 7 Measuring Long-Term Outcomes Through Organization-Public Relationships 7 Existing Relationship Scales 10 External Factors Influencing Organizatio n-Public Relationships: Public Image 14 Image as an internal organizational measure 15 Image as an external organizational measure 16 Factors related to image 18 Implications of image for public relations 20 Differentiating image from reputation and identity 23 Operationalizing public image 25 External Factors Influencing Organizatio n-Public Relationships: Public Trust 26 Operationalizing public trust 31 Communication 32 Model 34 Research Questions 36 Chapter Three: Methods 37 The Organization 37 Respondents and Survey Administration 37 Survey Instrument 38 Analytical Method 40

PAGE 4

ii Chapter Four: Results 43 Demographics 43 Research Questions 46 Chapter Five: Discussion 66 Public Image and Its Effects 67 Public Trust and Its Effects 70 Relationship Factors Versus P ublic Image and Public Trust 73 Communication 74 A Model of Long-Term Effects of Communication 76 Chapter Six: Conclusions 78 Implications for Public Relations 78 Study Limitations 79 Future Research 80 References 82 Appendices 89 Appendix A: Initial email of surv ey to external stakeholders 90 Appendix B: Follow-up email of reminding st akeholders to complete the survey 91 Appendix C: Survey Instrument 92 Appendix D: Primary FWC logo 94 Appendix E: Secondary FWC logo 95 Appendix F: Number of Res pondents by County of Residents 96 Appendix G: Counties by Organizational Region 97

PAGE 5

iii List of Tables Table 1 Respondent Demographics 45 Table 2 Respondent Counties by Region 46 Table 3 Public Image Index After Factor Analysis 47 Table 4 Mean and Standard Deviati ons for Public Image Constructs 48 Table 5 Mean and Standard Devi ations for Four Proposed Public Image Constructs 49 Table 6 Correlations Among Public Im age and Organizational Factors 50 Table 7 Public Image Index After Factor Analysis 51 Table 8 Means and Standard Deviati ons for Public Trust Construct 51 Table 9 Correlations Among Public Tr ust and Organizational Factors 52 Table 10 Means and Standard Deviat ions for Relationship Constructs 54 Table 11 Construct Correlations with Public Image 55 Table 12 Construct Correlati ons with Public Trust 56 Table 13 Factor Analysis of Publ ic Trust, Satisfaction, Trust, Commitment, and Control Mutuality 57 Table 14 Construct Correlation Be tween Public Trust and Trust 58 Table 15 Construct Correlation Between Public Image and Public Trust 58 Table 16 ANOVA Between Six C onstruct Variables and Age 60 Table 17 ANOVA Between Six Cons truct Variables and Region 61 Table 18 ANOVA Between Six Constr uct Variables and Education 62

PAGE 6

iv List of Figures Figure 1 Long-term effects of communication outputs model 35

PAGE 7

v Identification and Measurement of Two Fact ors Affecting the LongTerm Outcomes of Public Relations Programs: Public Image and Public Trust Kimberly B. Amendola ABSTRACT This study explores the most current theories surrounding organization-public relationship measurement, which is one appro ach used to verify the effectiveness of public relations programs. The study attempte d to define and test two new factors that may affect organization-public rela tionships, which are identified as public image and public trust Existing factors used to test such relationships, such as trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality focus on testing the perceptions stakeholders have about an organization based upon their interper sonal relationship with that organization. However, in organizations where the domi nant coalition still does not view public relations as a management function, use of th e existing scales to measure the long-term effectiveness of public relations programs can be dangerous and inaccurate, especially when public relations practitioners are not responsible for creating, maintaining, or managing those organizationpublic relationships. A 65-item questionnaire was administered via email to a convenience sample of 5,799 stakeholders. A total of 1,193 completed questionnaires were received; however, a response rate could not be reported because the questionnaire was posted to a popular Internet site. The survey instrument tested new items for public image and public trust as well as the existing relationship items of trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality defined by Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999).

PAGE 8

vi Factor analysis define d two new indices for public image and public trust and Cronbach’s alpha further supported the reliabil ity of these measures. Also, Cronbach’s alphas tested reliable for trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality However, when all items for public image public trust trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality were subject to factor analysis, al l but four items weighted into one factor. This suggests the need to further e xplore new measurement t ools for assessing the long-term effectiveness of public relations programs beyond the organization-public relationship.

PAGE 9

1 1 “ A primary function of public relations is managing image. Managing image involves controlling how actors in the environment perceive an organization.” Robert J. Ristino (2003) Chapter One INTRODUCTION This study investigates the most current theories surrounding organization-public relationship measurement, which is one appro ach used to measure the effectiveness of public relations programs. Factors such as trust and commitment are currently used to measure organization-public relationships. Th ese factors focus on testing the perceptions stakeholders have about an organization base d upon their interpersonal relationships with that organization; thus, concl uding that strong relationships ar e the result of an effective public relations program and weak relationshi ps are the result of a less effective public relations program. Although an excellent th eory, the methodology can be inappropriately applied within organizations that do not consid er relationship management to be, in part, the role of its public relations staff. Theref ore, this study will attempt to define two new measurement factors that are not dependent upon interpersonal relationships. These factors are identified as public image and public trust for this study. The theory behind these factors is to identify a more appropr iate instrument for measuring the long-term effects of public relations programs base d upon universal duties of public relations practitioners, such as quality of literature, media relations, and the execution of public relations programs.

PAGE 10

2 2 Over the last decade, public relations schol ars and practitioners have developed an innate awareness of the need for measuri ng the long-term effects of public relations programs. The issue is addressed in popul ar trade magazines (Michaelson, Weiner, Rambeau, 2003), peer-reviewed journals (Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999; Bruning & Ledingham, 2000a; Bruning & Galloway, 2002), and is even highlighted on The Institute for Public Relations’ Web site (Institute for Public Re lations, 2003). The focus of public relations conferences has shifte d in this direction as well. This shift started with a summit on evaluating public relations output s and outcomes held in 1996 among a dozen leading practitioners, counselors, research ers, and academicians (Lindenmann, 1997a). More recently, The Sixth Intern ational, Interdisciplinary Public Relations Research Conference (2003) and The Measurement Sta ndard Summit (2003) provided venues for scholars to share new measurement theories and for practitioners to share current case studies addressing measurement practices. Both forums specifically addressed public relations measurement. Previously, public relations was measur ed exclusively through short-term communication flows, such as counting press releases and news clippings, rather than measuring perceptual, symbolic, relational, and behavioral long-term outcomes (Bruning & Ledingham, 2000b). Bruning and Ledingham ( 1999) supported this notion when they said, “The practice of public relations has been grounded in a journalistic approach, and initially the field was concerned almost exclusively on generati ng publicity through the use of press agentry” (p. 158). More recently, scholars are changing their research efforts from solely measuring short-term communication flows to measuring long-term outcomes, such as organization-

PAGE 11

3 3 public relationships (Bruning, 2002) Heath (2001) said, “The heart of the new view of the practice of public relations is the mutu ally beneficial rela tionships that an organization needs to enjoy a license to opera te. Instead of engin eering acceptance of a product or service, the new view of public rela tions assumes that markets are attracted to and kept by organizations that can create mutu ally beneficial rela tionships” (p. 3). One can turn to a number of relations hip measurement scales available to practitioners and scholars for m easuring long-term effects of public relations. Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999), Bruning and Ledingham (1999), and Huang (2001a) have identified and tested organization-public relationship scales in an effo rt to measure the perceived relationships and attitudes between an orga nization and its stakeholders. Again, in theory, a strong relationship would symbolize a successful or excellent public relations program, and a weak relationship would sy mbolize a less excellent public relations program. Those who review these scales will find them valid tools for measuring perceptions of interpersonal relationships that exist betw een two known entities sharing a common issue or interest. However, practitioners and scholars mu st be cautious when relying upon these scales as a sole method for measuring the effectiveness of an organization’s public relations practitioners and progr ams, especially when those practitioners do not engage in any sort of relationship building, maintenan ce, or management activities between their organization and its stakeholders. Even when involved in those activ ities, practitioners might not have sole control over those re lationships, and factors external to the organization, such as the media, may also influence their organizat ions’ relationships. Therefore, holding public relations practiti oners solely responsible for the long-term

PAGE 12

4 4 outcomes of organization-public relationships, especially those they are not involved with, is not the most effective way of m easuring the performance of public relations practitioners or the outcomes of public re lations programs. Practitioners must be assigned the responsibility before they can be held accountable for its outcome. Three reasons stand out as to why practi tioners are not typically responsible for organization-public relationships. The firs t is when practitione rs are employed by a public relations agency. Often, there is not enough time or opportunity for these practitioners to be maintain ing relationships between thei r clients and their clients’ stakeholders. Secondly, executive staff or the dominant coaliti on still do not understand the role of public rela tions as a management function. Finally, practitioners often lack the management expertise needed to understand relationship building (Bruning & Ledingham, 1999; L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002). As a result, it is conceivable to specula te that the existing scales available to measure organization-public relationships shoul d only be used to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of public relations programs when practitioners are tasked with the management function of building and maintainin g relationships. Furthermore, this study posits that it is up to public relations scholar s and practitioners to design new instruments more suitable for measuring the long-term effects of public relations programs independent of organization-publ ic relationship measurement. These instruments must include measurement of more tangible items that practitioners are responsible for, such as media outputs or logo recognition. Therefore, this study will not only defi ne and test existing factors surrounding interpersonal organization-public relationships, but it will also attempt to identify and test

PAGE 13

5 5 two new factors, public image and public trust which are not necessari ly a result of or influenced by any interper sonal relationships. Managing image and building trust through public relations outputs, such as media outputs, are two respon sibilities public relations practitioners are often tasked with providing for an organi zation (Ristino, 2003). Thus, this study will review the literature surrounding both image and trust as well as attempt to define items or variables reliable for measuring each index. The term image takes on many definitions throughout theory and practice; in fact, the definition changes between disciplines (Gioia, Schultz, & Corley, 2000). Some theorists consider image to be construed as an intern al organizational function (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994), and others conve y it to be an external function (Hatch & Schultz, 2002). There is ve ry little discussion about image within the public relations body of literature, and it appears that public re lations theorists and researchers shy away from the term. Thus, for this study, the term public image was coined and defined as an external function in te rms of a perception that stakehol ders’ have of an organization’s image based upon media outputs and ot her personal experiences. Unlike image trust is addressed regularly throug hout public relations literature, especially in regard to or ganization-public relationships (Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999). This type of trust is typically identified as an interpersonal trust where you trust me, and I trust you; however, there is another type of trust which is identified as public trust Public trust identifies the perception external stak eholders have in terms of trusting an organization based upon what they see a nd hear through media outputs and other personal experiences (Thomas, 1998). Like public image public trust is also viewed as an external function for this study.

PAGE 14

6 6 The central thesis of this study is to prove that factors such as public image and public trust can affect stakeholders’ perceptions of an organiza tion and that these factors can be used to measure long-term outcomes of public relations progr ams. The literature review will include a discussion of the exis ting theory and scales used to define and measure organization-public relationships; a summary of image and trust as they are interpreted throughout interdisciplin ary research; and definitions of public image and public trust Finally, an effort will be made to map out the ways in which communication flows, such as media outputs, can influe nce long-term outcomes, and to determine whether long-term outcomes ma y influence one another.

PAGE 15

7 7 Chapter Two LITERATURE REVIEW Measuring the effectiveness of public re lations programs has challenged scholars and practitioners for years. Although they may understand th e value of pub lic relations, executive staff and those within the dominant coalition strugg le with the field since it cannot be viewed as a budget line item (Fe lton, 2003). Thus, scholars and practitioners have begun to identify instruments to meas ure long-term outcomes of public relations programs beyond the line item. Measuring Long-Term Outcomes Throug h Organization-Public Relationships Lindenmann (1997a, 1997b) suggested, in a se ries of guiding principles for public relations, that there is more to measuring a nd evaluating public relations than merely to measure media content. Both studies advocat ed that public relations should always be measured or evaluated in rela tion to each organization’s goal s, objectives, and strategies, and, that it is important to differentiate between measuring public relations outputs (short-term goals) and public relations outcomes (long-term goals). They also argued that public relations effectiv eness should not be compared to advertising or marketing effectiveness. Scholars and practitioners began measuri ng short-term outputs of public relations programs and the effects they had on two-wa y relationships during the 1970s. However, during the 1980s, they gradually shifted fo cus toward measuring long-term outcomes (Bruning & Galloway, 2002). This was known as the moment in time when public

PAGE 16

8 8 relations was established as a manageme nt function (J. E. Grunig & Huang, 2000). Ledingham (2001) referred to this shift from measuring short-term effects to measuring long-term effects as the “r econceptualization of public relations” (p. 286) where the public relations practitio ners were challenged to shift from validation (clip-counting) to evaluation (measuring behavior outcomes). Scholars have identified achieving excellent organization-public relationships as a long-term outcome of public re lations programs (Huang, 1997; Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999). However, as relationship manageme nt becomes one of the most widely understood ideologies in public relations schol arship, measuring the long-term effects of such relationships remains one of the most underutilized and misunderstood methods in public relations practice, where it has become increasingly more important. Bruning and Galloway (2002) argued that “if effective measurement and management techniques can be developed, public relations practitioners will be able to demonstrate the ways in which public rela tions activity influences organizational outcomes, and relationships will remain cente r stage in study and practice” (p. 310). They felt the long-term success of these “cente r stage” relationships would rely heavily on communication, behavior, and mutual understanding and agreement between an organization and its publics. Although there is not one clear defin ition of public relations, top scholars predominantly include relationship management in their definitions of public relations (Bruning, 2002). For example, Cutlip, Center, and Broom (1985) defined public relations as “the management function that identifie s, establishes, and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organi zation and the various publics on whom its

PAGE 17

9 9 success or failure depends” (p.5). Organization-public relationships are defined as relationships existing between an organization and any of its publics th at can constrain or enhance the organization’s ability to meet its mission (Bruning & Ledingham, 1999). The term relationship best describes the desired long-term outcome of public relations practice. Researchers state, “An or ganization with effective public relations will attain positive public relationships” (Center & Jackson, 1995, p. 2). Some argue that the results or outcome of the behavioral rela tionship are far more important than the symbolic relationship that can exist between an organization and its publics (Center & Jackson, 1995). To the question “Why is relationship mana gement important for organizations?” scholars offered several explan ations. Effective relations hips help an organization maintain key constituencies and save money by reducing the cost of litigation, regulation, legislation, pressure campaigns or lost revenue that resu lts from bad relationships. Cultivating relationships with donors, stakeholde rs, and legislators can, in turn, increase revenue, increase user buy-in, and garner more support for the organization and its mission (Hunt & J. E. Grunig, 1994; Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999). One goal of public relations is for organi zations to communicate well with their publics to ensure each side knows what to expect from the other. This builds strong, trusting relationships and perhaps lessen s the effect a public can have on an organization’s mission and goals. Each side do es not always have to agree or get along, as long as they have understanding. Ultim ately, communication and compromise are the foundation of public relations (Hunt & J. E. Grunig, 1994). Lindenmann (1998) quotes Kathleen Ward stating, “Positive relationships are those in which both or all parties

PAGE 18

10 10 perceive that they benefit. As in any re lationship, some accommodations will be called for” (p. 19). As relationship studies began to a ppear during the mid-1980s, measuring organization-public relationships did not take full shape in scholarship until the 1990s (Lindenmann, 1997a; Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999; Ledingham, 2001; Bruning, 2002). Relationship building has become such an important focus in public relations today because publics are more active and interactive than ever be fore (Bruning, 2002). Thus, the value of public relations comes from the relationships that communicators develop and maintain with publics. Practitioners help organizations build re lationships with their publics by facilitating communication between subsystems of an organization and its publics, both internally and ex ternally (L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002). Once an organization-public relationship is established, the type, strength, and effects of that relationship should be eval uated. Thus, the following scholars have offered up instruments that identify the type of relationship that exists between an organization and its publics, while at the same time measuring the strength of that relationship. Existing Relationship Scales For almost a decade, Larissa Grunig, Jame s Grunig, and David Dozier carried out a longitudinal project, called The Excellence Study to answer “how, why, and to what extent communication affects the achievem ent of organizational objectives” (2002, p. ix.). One of the results of this study was th e identification of two types of relationships, exchange and communal that can exist between an organization and its publics. The researchers found that perceptions regarding an organization’s long-term relationships

PAGE 19

11 11 with key publics are best measured by focusi ng on very precise elements or variables of existing relationships. An exchange relationship takes place when “one party gives benefits to the other only because the other has provided benefits in the past or is expected to do so in the future” (L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig, & Dozi er, 2002, p. 552). Typically this type of relationship is not satisfying enough for publics because they expect an organization to do and give more than the public itself gives. A communal relationship exists when “both parties provide benefits to the other because they are concerned for the welfare of the other – even when they get nothing in return” (L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002, p. 552). This type of relati onship appears to be the most beneficial, especially for the organization, since both the public and th e organization are striving for the same goal and will provide benefits when appropriate, without keeping score. As exchange and communal define types of relationshi ps, it is equally important to interpret the quality of relationships. Huang (1997) and Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) identified four elements that de fine the quality of relationships: trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality Trust measures one group’s level of voluntary readiness to open oneself to the other group; satisfaction measures the extent to which one group feels favorable toward the other because positive exp ectations about the relationship are reinforced; commitment measures the extent to which one group believes that the relationship is worthy of maintaining and promoting; and c ontrol mutuality measures the degree to which groups agree on who has rightful power to impact each other (Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999, p. 3; L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002, p. 553).

PAGE 20

12 12 Building on these constructs, international research identified a important need to expand the current scale to reflect cu ltural differences. For example, face and favor were defined and tested in relation to Chinese cult ure. These dimensions were identified as resources to be exchanged between an or ganization and its public. Maintaining face is a concept that describes social in teractions or what is done in front of others to enhancing human networks. Favor “connotes a set of social norms by which one must abide to get along well with other people in Ch inese society” (Huang, 2001a, p. 69). Huang (2001b) applied all five constructs – trust satisfaction commitment control mutuality and face and favor – in a second study hypothe sizing that the strategy an organization chooses to use for conflict resolution will be driven by the organizationpublic relationship that exists. Two important implications for public relations theory arose from this study. First, the study de monstrated the significance of relationship management, and, second, the model supported the value of relationship management for public relations in term s of conflict resolution. John Ledingham and Steven Bruning also identified new measurement factors in a serious of studies. These two authors conducted research on sp ecific organizations, such as local utility companies (Led ingham & Bruning, 1998), local governments (Ledingham, 2001), and universities (Bruning, 20 02). They set out to identify ways in which stakeholders’ perceptions of their rela tionships with an organization influences their behaviors, attitudes, and predis positions toward that organization. Measurement factors such as openness trust involvement commitment and investment were identified in one of their firs t studies (Ledingham & Bruning, 1998). These factors help to measure the strength of a relationship. They also defined and

PAGE 21

13 13 validated three types of relationships – personal professional and community – which differ from the two ( exchange and communal ) defined by Hon and J. E. Grunig (Bruning & Ledingham, 1999; Bruning & Galloway, 2002). Se veral studies tested these factors. Overall, the research found that strong re lationships contribute to the retention of stakeholders. One study found that custom ers identifying an existing relationship between themselves and an organization were more likely to remain customers of that organization (Bruning, 2000). Another study found citizens remain living in their community when they perceived that their lo cal governments were providing benefits for, acting in the best interest of, and dedicati ng resources to support public citizens needs (Ledingham, 2001). And, yet another study fou nd the ability for a university to retain students depended on the attitude s of the university toward the student and vice versa (Bruning 2002). Against the background of a ll these models and studies Ledingham (2003) made the first attempt to define a general th eory of public relati ons for relationship management. He argued that “effectively managing organizationalpublic relationships around common interests and shared goals, ove r time, results in mutual understanding and benefit for interacting orga nizations and publics” (p.190). These theoretical implications further support the need to shift some focus to managing and evaluating relationships; however it should not be at the risk of losing significant communication flows. There is a need to address whether communication flows can influences the strength of organi zation-public relationships. Thus adding more dimensions to measuring the long-term ef fectiveness of public relations programs, regardless of a practitioners involvement with a stakeholder. One can question whether

PAGE 22

14 14 communication outputs affect st akeholders’ perceptions of an organization, and if so, does that perception then affect the stakehol ders’ perception of thei r relationships with that organization? Currently, the existi ng measurement tools cannot answer these questions. Identifying tools to address this need became the motivation for this study. To this point, the literature review has identified the existing measurement tools that will be built upon throughout this study. Ne xt, the literature revi ew will identify and define two new factors, public image and public trust which might add additional dimensions to measuring long-term outcomes of public relations. In clusion of these two factors may, first, provide a tool to measure long-term outcomes of public relations programs without having to rely on interpers onal relationships that practitioners may or may not have with stakeholders, and sec ondly, provide a tool to measure effects communication flows have on inte rpersonal relationships. External Factors Influencing Organizati on-Public Relationships: Public Image This section will summarize the concept of image as it appears throughout disciplines, including business and education. Briefly, the term will be differentiated from reputation and identity with which image is often considered synonymous. Finally, the term public image is defined and operationalized based upon the interdisciplinary definitions provided. The concept of image differs from field to field, a nd within public relations, the concept often has opposite interp retations among scholars. Some scholars refer to it as synonymous with reputation (Ledingham & Bruning, 2001), others identify it as a separate concept (Day, Dong, & R obins, 2001), and some do not re fer to it at all, in fact

PAGE 23

15 15 they loathe the concept all together and me rely dismiss it as a misinterpretation of reputation (J. E. Grunig, 1993). Image is recognized in disciplines such as business (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994), education (Nguyen & LeBlanc, 2001) and organizational communications (Hatch & Schultz, 1997). However, a theoretical gap exists among disciplines. Scholars either view the concept as internal or ex ternal to the organization (J. E. Grunig, 1993). Further complicating this concept, some believe image is both internal and external to the organization (Kazoleas Kim, and Moffitt, 2001). Therefore, the following sections will identify these conflic ting definitions by starting with a brief description of image as an internal organizational concept. Image as an internal organizational measure Several scholars identified organizational image as the perception internal groups have of other groups inside and outside of the organization. These studies found that employees’ perception of their organization’s image affected relationships with other units (Brown & Golembiewski, 1974); em ployee behavior (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994; Gioia & Thomas, 1996); and st rategic change and issue interpretation (Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002). Education studies have referred to the term institutional image which is also identified as internal to the organization. Much of the literature focuses on higher institutions. Scholars identify that image plays a critical role in universities and institutions of higher educati on, and that it is especially cr itical to survive and prosper throughout a time where enrollment is down and competition arises (Paramewaran & Glowacka, 1995; Ivy, 2001; Kazoleas, Kim, & Moffitt, 2001; Nguyen & LeBlanc, 2001).

PAGE 24

16 16 As these studies interpret image as internal to the orga nization, the next section identifies scholars who view image as a phenomenon being percei ved as external to the organization, whether by the general populat ion, individuals, or stakeholder groups. Image as an external organizational measure Hatch and Schultz (1997, 2002) added to the body of organizational theory literature regarding image Their two seminal articles on th is topic laid the foundation for scholars to understand image as an external concepts. They proposed an overarching definition of organizational image which combined the ideas of other organizational and marketing theorists. They posited that organizational image is: A holistic and vivid impression held by an individual or a particular group towards an organization and is a result of a fabricated and projected picture itself. Such communication by the organization occurs as top managers and cor porate spokespers ons orchestrate deliberate attempts to influence publi c impression. However, image is also influenced by the everyday in teractions between organizational members and external audiences. Furthermore, the image formed by a particular group within the external audience can be affected by the intentions and influences of a wi de range of actors including other groups (p. 361). Although viewed as an external concep t, these authors contended that it influences internal processes because or ganizational members are also members of external groups. Thus, a relationship can form between internal and external stakeholders where information from inside the organizati on is exposed to extern al stakeholders and,

PAGE 25

17 17 in return, external stakeh olders will impress their opinions and judgments about the organization’s image on the employees (Hatch & Schultz, 2002). Moffitt (2001) is one of the few public relations scholars to have defined image in contemporary literature. She acknowledged that even when an organization delivers its intended images the audience members ultimately determines their image of that organization. Also, too often it is presumed that only one global image exists, when in fact, the receiver often processes multiple images of an organization. She further summarizes: An image is conceptualized as any and all opinions, pieces of information, attitudes, and behaviors that an individual holds regarding an organization. Multiple images are possible for each individual and some images often differentiate from the corporate intention. These images are theorized as historical events or as products of personal, environmental, and organizational factors that are nevertheless, changeable because they always are historically and culturally contextualized (p. 349). This definition provides insight in to how one person can develop many images of one organization. These images may not only differ from the organization’s intention, but also can differ from each ot her, where nega tive and positive images about one organization can be perceived by one person. Knowing a person can have multiple images about an organization raises the question however, of how these images are cr eated? What are some factors that may

PAGE 26

18 18 contribute to these images? The following section summarizes four factors that may influence such images Factors related to image With such an array of definitions for image it is understandable as to why scholars shy away from use of the term. However, aside from these complications, there are factors that are commonly used by pub lic relations scholars when describing attributes of image These factors are rhetoric (Benoit & Smythe, 2003), behavior (Baker, 2001), representation (DeSanto & Garner, 2001), and visual impression (Day, Dong, and Robins, 2001). Rhetoric is often defined as language used to help persuade or influence people (Benoit & Smythe, 2003). These words provoke a certain value or image in a person’s mind (Day, Dong, & Robins, 2001). It is viewed as the ways in which writers write in order to project a certain image (Hyland, 1998). Some studies have analy zed specific aspects of image such as rhetoric Emrich, Brower, Feldman, and Garland (2001) analyzed two sets of U.S. presidents’ speeches to determine whether their tendency to transm it images in words were correlated to perceptions of their charisma and greatness. They operationalized the term imagery as the extent to which a word “quickly and eas ily arouses a sensory experience such as a mental picture or sound” (p. 529). The aut hors believed that infl uential people who use words to conjure up sensations, such as sme lls and tastes, relate more directly to followers’ life experiences than those w ho use words that only please a followers’ intellect. In essence, messages become more immediate and real when speakers use words that appeal to ones’ senses rather than ones’ intellect.

PAGE 27

19 19 Therefore, Brower, Feldman, a nd Garland (2001) distinguished image-based words, which evoke sensory experiences, from concept-based words, which predominantly captivate listeners’ logical inte rpretations. Studies have found that people prefer image -based content to concept-based content. Although it is uncl ear as to exactly why this is the case, some theory suggests that imagery reflects the extent to which a word refers to something that can be experi enced rather than merely understood. In their two-part study, the authors f ound presidents who used more image -based rhetoric, such as darkness journey and laughter in their inaugural addresses would be deemed more charismatic and judged as grand. Behavior is identified as one of the key st rategies when building or restoring organizational image (Baker, 2001). This concept refers to the ways that an organization, or members of the organization, acts in relation to one another and with the organization’s stakeholders. Studies conducted on the United St ates Congress concluded that image is extremely important to the public’s approval. While studying models of congressional seat changes, Finocchiaro (2003) f ound value in studying how the public’s image of Congressional behavior impacts the electoral success of its members. The author felt the way in which congressional members and the political parties carry out their duties is directly related to the image individual citizens have of the institution. Furthermore, they noted that congressional behaviors, such as veto overrides, also affect congressional approval and the organization’s image Representation refers to standardization and consistency among public relations outputs. For example, it is important to have one agency logo that identifies an

PAGE 28

20 20 organization and unites all publ ications (DeSanto & Garner 2001). As organizations build messages designed to influence stakeholde rs, the quality and vehicle used to reach an organization’s publics is e qually important. Control of the content and quality of message is identified as one of the most important tools used to maintain a positive image especially with the me dia (Cozier & Witmer, 2001). Visual impression (or visual image) is something that identifies whether or not people like what is presented to them. People are first c oncerned with impression of the product, such as a brochure or magazine, ra ther than the factual content (Day, Dong, & Robins, 2001). Implications of image for public relations Organizations should pro actively be involved in image building through developing, maintaining, protecting, and restoring organizational images particularly during times of crisis (Baker, 2001). Interest ingly, there is not an abundance of scholarly literature on image development, maintenance, and prot ection within public relations. It is most commonly discussed in reference to re storation within crisis management, a topic containing a wealth of literature (Bri nson & Benoit, 1996; Benoit & McHale, 1999; Burns & Bruner, 2000; Seeger, Sellnow, & Ulmer, 2001). However, scholars do agree that public rela tions is the function to maintain and repair the organizational image especially in relation to crisis management. Seeger, Sellnow and Ulmer (2001) pointed out that publ ic relations practitioners are responsible for mitigating harm, responding to stakeholders ’ needs, and repairing their organizations’ image Most of the crisis management literature discusses image in terms of restoration and repair once a crisis has happene d. Brinson and Benoit’s (1996) five image

PAGE 29

21 21 restoration strategies are mo st recognized. These strate gies are denial, evasion of responsibility, reduction of the offensive of event, correctiv e action, and mortification. In a similar vein, The Collapse Model of Corporate Image addresses image development and maintenance within public rela tions scholarship and practice. In this model, the terms image and public position are theorized as essent ially related concepts that function in similar ways and thus, are collapsed into the same model for corporate image (Moffitt, 2001). Public position is defined as a single factor or piece of information held by one person about an orga nization. Of course, it is possible for a person to hold two or more different positions about an organization. For example, “if a person has some positive and some negative opinions regarding a company and, consequently, takes some positive or negativ e behaviors toward the same organization, then each opinion, each attitude, and each beha vior corresponds to a singular and separate public position” (Moffitt, 2001, p. 350). Kazoleas, Kim, and Moffitt (2001) studied how audiences who relate to an organization receive and negotiate institutional image They examined multiple and differing images that a particular universit y held around its state and identified the influence of various organizational, personal, or environmental factors in the processing of the received images in the a udience members. In this study, image was defined as “the result of a complex and multifaceted struggle of attributes processed by the individual through messages sent by the organiza tion and through other intentional and unintentional social, historical, personal, lived experiences, and material factors” (p.206). Their study identified seven different images: overall image program image teaching and research emphasis, quality of education, environmental factors, financial reasons, and

PAGE 30

22 22 sports programs. Respondents’ perceptions were not influenced by media images, but rather through personal experi ences and interpersonal relatio nships. As a result, the authors suggested the university focus their efforts on community relations and customer relations rather than only me dia and marketing campaigns. Nonetheless, other scholars argued it is important to study the concept of image because when the media portray a negative organizational image that organization should take action in an attempt to correct the public’s perception of the organization’s image A study conducted on the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and found that when homeless people congregated in the Port Authority’s bus and train stations, the homeless problem became the Port Authority’s problem in the eyes of the community and the local media. Co rrecting the organization’s image under these circumstances thus became very important. The argument was that an organizational image could be portrayed by its identit y. In other words, an external stakeholder’s image of an organization could be created and molded by the way staff members represent their organization to the public (D utton & Dukerich, 1991). Conversely, other scholars do not completely agr ee with the idea that a stakeholder’s perception of an organization’s image is fully created by the organization’s employees or the organization itself. They be lieve that stakeholders have created their own images of an organization as well, a nd that those images leak back into the organization and its employees, t hus creating more of a mirror effect. This mirror effect intimately connects an organization’s internal st akeholders with its external stakeholders. Other external factors, such as media ou tlets, affect organizational identity and image and these factors are filtered or interpreted by internal and external stakeholders. Each

PAGE 31

23 23 party is then exposed to th e interpretation of the other, creating a new impression. Therefore, increased exposure to external factors produces more images to compete with those projected by the organization. Furt hermore, the more dissonance occurring between how the internal stakeholders (ide ntity) view their organization from how the organization’s external stakeholders ( image ) view the organization, the more threatened the organization becomes (Hatch & Schultz, 2002). The preceding literature review identified many ways in which image is conceptualized, defined, and operationalize throughout various disciplines. Unfortunately, these definitions are inconsis tent and contradictor y. The most obvious inconsistency is when image is defined as an internal organizational function (Brown & Golembiewski, 1974) versus as an external organizational function (Hatch & Schultz, 1997). Another discrepancy is the way in which scholars confuse or use the term synonymously with other organizational terms, such as identity and reputation Furthermore, scholars also argue about th e influence of the me dia in creating an organizational image Differentiating Image from Reputation and Identity Before operationalizing image for this study, it is important to define reputation and identity since these two terms are most co mmonly confused or used synonymously with the term image especially within public relations. For example, image has been used synonymously with prestige (economics), reputation (in marketing), goodwill (law), and organizational standing (human relations) (Shenkar & Yuctman-Yaar, 1997, p.1361).

PAGE 32

24 24 However, image is most commonly confused with reputation and identity thus the following section will define these two concepts, which in this study are considered completely separate concepts from image As image has multiple definitions, so do the concepts of reputation and identity (J. E. Grunig, 1993; van Ri el & Balmer, 1997; Gotsi & Wilson, 2001). Research on these concepts can be found in many fields, but most commonly within organizational theory (R ichmond, Bissell, and Beach, 1998), corporate communications and marketing (Gotsi & Wilson, 2001), and administration (Dukerich, Golden, & Shortell, 2002). Corporate reputation has been defined as a stake holder’s overall evaluation of a company over time, which is based upon stakeholders’ direct experiences and communications with the company. Reputation is also identified by a company’s actions and/or a comparison of actions from other co mpanies, which distinguishes that company from its rivals (Gotsi and Wilson, 2001, p. 29; Dutton, Dukerich, and Harquail, 1994). However, r eputation differs from image because images can be based on false perceptions and only orga nizations can create and communicate their true reputations to their publics (Baker, 2001). Dozens of definitions have been used to define identity (Melewar & Jenkins, 2002). Or ganizational identity is a collective, commonly shared understanding of an organization’s unique values and characteristi cs presented by that organization to its internal and external audiences (H atch and Schultz, 1997; Olins, 1989). Identity differs from image in that it is the way in which an or ganization projects itself, and thus is independent of external influences.

PAGE 33

25 25 Studies by Hatch and Schultz (2002) and Nguyen and LeBlanc (2001) also contend that identity and reputation are factors that can influence image However, for the purpose of this study, thes e two concepts are viewed as completely separate from image The three concepts of image reputation and identity are concepts of equal weight and, unlike rhetoric behavior representation and visual impression the concepts of reputation and identity in no way define image within the confines of this study. This brief summary of reputation and identity should help the reader differentiate between the two concepts and the concept of image In an effort to avoid confusion within this study, the following section will define image which will be coined public image as an external function that is independent of reputation and identity Operationalizing public image The term public image has not been defined within public relations or any other discipline. The term public image was adopted for this study and is defined based upon a combination of the external concepts previous ly described by scholars such as Hatch and Schultz (2002), Emerich, Brower Feldman, and Garland (2001), and Finocchiaro (2003). Therefore, p ublic image is the perception of an organi zation held by the organization’s external stakeholders (Bente le, 1994; Hatch & Schultz, 200), whereby these views are the result of internal (e.g. controlled media) and external (e.g. uncontrolled media) communications from and about an organiza tion (Matera & Artigue, 1999). Images tend to be created by specific factors such as rhetoric behavior representation and visual impression ; therefore, these factors will be tested in an effort to derive whether or not they can be used to further define public image (Day, Dong, & Robins, 2001; Baker, 2001; DeSanto & Garner, 2001).

PAGE 34

26 26 As stated previously, managing image and building trust through communication flows, such as media outputs and public mee tings, are often the re sponsibilities public relations practitioners (Ris tino, 2003). The concept of image referred to here is an example of public image described above, and the concept of trust is that of public trust which is discussed in the next section. External Factors Influencing Organizati on-Public Relationships: Public Trust This section will summarize the concept of public trust as it appears throughout various disciplines. The concept of trust within public relations is most often referred to as an interpersonal trust where you trust me, and I trust you. However, there is another type of trust – one that is based upon a person’ s perception of another person or organization. This type of trust is called public trust and is the one that will be referred to in this section. A new definition of public trust will be created in this section and in essence does not imply an interpersonal trust such as the trust Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) describe. Public trust is identified in disciplines such as public administration (Thomas, 1998), marketing (Sargeant & Lee, 2001), a nd public opinion (Chanley, Rudolph, and Rahn, 2000). Thomas (1998) questioned how public trust in government agencies could be maintained, restored, or even created. He suggested this to be a challenge because of the complexity surrounding trust and its many cognitive, emotional, and behavioral components. Overall, the author felt trust is based on what people believe rather than what people expect. Bentele (1994) suggested that communi cation values such as images, product aesthetics, prestige value, and entertai nment value became a necessity over pure

PAGE 35

27 27 information to ensure new product markets. This change led to an increasing use of public relations because a single mistake in business communication can result in substantial economic loss as we ll as a perceptual loss of public trust Scholars in this area acknowledge the fact that a theory for public trust does not exist (Bentele, 1994; Thomas, 1998; Miszta l, 2001). These scholars referenced Luhmann’s conceptualization of public trust which argued that public trust is a communicative mechanism used to reduce co mplexity in trust objects (politicians, institutions, etc.). Public trust is a media mediated process in that the trust subjects have future expectations of trust objects based on past experiences. With this definition, public trust is established as a process. The most important elements in the process are trust subjects, trust mediators, the state of the events and issues and messages (realities created through the media). Bentele (1994) identif ied four types of public trust : (interpersonal) basis trust (public) system trust (public) institutional trust and (public) personal trust Basis trust is the result of individua l and interpersonal socialization. In this context he distinguishes between communicative, social acts that lead to communication relationships. These are the results of relationship variables such as the content of the messa ge (reported detail, plausibility, logical consiste nce), extra-linguistic attribut es (speed of speech, speech mistakes, etc.), and nonverbal attributes and psychosocial phenomenon (heightened blood pressure, breathing, etc.). Basis trust contributes to public trust because public figures and organizations often project themselves through the audiovisual media, which simulates interpersonal contacts. System trust relates to the socio-political, or socioeconomic system. Institutional trust is a specific type of trust that can display low trust

PAGE 36

28 28 levels at the same time that high trust levels exist in system trust (e.g. a political party can have low trust levels, but the political system as such can still have high trust levels). Personal trust is based on the psychological mechanisms of basis trust but is aimed at public personalities. Along with these four types of public trust Bentele also identified nine attributes that will affect high trust levels. These attributes are expertise ability to solve problems communication ability communication adequacy communication consistency communication transparency communication frankness social responsibility and an ethic of responsibility In a similar vein, Thomas ( 1998) reviewed three types of trust and identified them as fiduciary mutual and social Fiduciary trust is when an individual places trust in another to act in his or her capacity. The asymmetrical relations hip is supported by the unilateral obligation of the trustee to act in th e other’s interest. Th e principal trusts the agent, but the agent need not tr ust the principle (p.169). An ex ample of this is the trust a patient has in his/her physician. Fiduciary trust is very important to the citizengovernment relationship because citizens do not monitor and do not know what their representatives are doing each day. These gove rnment representatives must be careful not to take advantage of their relationsh ip and the trust with in. This type of trust is very similar to Bentele’s (1994) system trust Mutual trust is a symmetrical and interpersonal concept that becomes important thro ughout public-private relationships. Mutual trust is when trust develops between two people, fo r example between a citizen and a government representative. Furthermore, as a result of this trusting relationship, the citizen may be more inclined to trust other government representa tives because of his or her trust for the individual representative in wh ich s/he has an existing relationship.

PAGE 37

29 29 Social trust is conceptualized as a form of so cial capital, which a society gradually accumulates through the microlevel interactions of individuals and which then become a public good on which others draw. Although social trust occurs in the aggregate, it cannot be clearly delineated from either mutual trust or fiduciary trust They are interwoven and mutually supportive (p.174-175). Thomas also referenced Zucker’s three modes of trust production: characteristicbased trust process-based trust and institutional-based trust Characteristic-based trust is produced through personal characteristics, such as race, gender, and family background, which serve as indicators of me mbership in a common cultural system. Characteristic-based trust is most prevalent in small communities that seldom interact with outsiders. Because it is relatively difficult to change personal characteristics, the most viable means for building this type of trust is to socialize with persons processing similar characteristics. Pursuing only a ch aracteristic-based strategy for building public trust would be rather shallow because individua ls in complex societies do not invest much energy in a trusting relationship based so lely on ascribed characteristics. By itself, characteristic-based trust is not a viable means for producing public trust in government agencies and their employees (p.176). Process-based trust is produced through repeated exchanges rather than through ascribed characteristics and, t hus, emerges over time. Whereas process-based trust may be facilitated by characteristic-based trust initial exchanges may also be motivated by self-interest, with no trust already present. Economic-exchange relationships, repeated exchanges, and value of goods exchanged affect the production of process-based trust (p.176).

PAGE 38

30 30 Institutional-based trust is produced through institu tions that have become accepted as social facts and are therefore seldom questioned. Institutional-based trust is broken down further into two types. The firs t is specific to pers ons or organizations because it rests on membership in a subculture within which carefully delineated specific expectations are expected to hold, at leas t in some cases based on detailed prior socialization. For example, public agencies signal conformance with social expectations, and thereby produce institutional-based trust One way to do this is by adopting the latest administrative fad—be it zero-bas ed budgeting, total quality management, or reengineering. The second type is produced through intermediary mechanisms such as laws, regulations, and insurance. For example, if you do not trust corporations to behave fairly and ethically, then you have to forma lize interorganizationa l relations by enacting antitrust rules (p. 176-177). Similar to Bentele, Thomas mentioned a number of ways to maintain public trust He encouraged the notion of giving se parate consideration to maintaining public trust He suggested that public trust could be lost through extensive and complex use of contracts detailing the precise responsibiliti es of each party. Other factors are role ambiguity, lying and misuse of power, a nd through individual incompetence. As the previously mentioned scholars determined, public trust is particularly important in politics. Chanley, Rudolph, a nd Rahn (2000) developed a quarterly time series measure of trust in the U.S. national govern ment and conducted the first multivariate time series examination of public trust in government. Th ey found a lack of trust could seriously affect third party e ndorsement of candidates and support for decentralized decision-making.

PAGE 39

31 31 In response to these previously tested and proven ideas, the aurthors further identified and tested the following variable s: public evaluation of the economy, public concern about crime, public concern about in ternational affairs, and the influence of congressional and presidential scanda ls. Their research found that trust in government was more closely linked with Congress and c ongressional scandals th an with presidents and presidential scandals They also found that public perceptions of pol itical scandals, the economy, and crime are closely linked to trust in government, and that these factors will influence the public’s perception of policy makers (Chanley, Rudolph, & Rahn, 2000). There is also a difference between trust and confidence although these two concepts are often synonymous (Sargeant & Lee, 2001). The researchers noted that “control or confidence is deri ved from the knowledge that on e knows what to expect in a situation and that one has the ability to impos e sanctions should this expectation not be met. Trust is distinguished from confidence in that the later rests on knowledge or predictability of the alter’s actions, while trust is necessary to maintain in the absence of such knowledge” (p. 69). Operationalizing public trust Public trust differs from the trust described by Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) discussed earlier. They described trust from an interpersonal approach. Based upon Bentele’s (1994) and Thomas’ (1998 ) definitions, for this study, public trust is defined as a type of trust that is perceived by an organization’ s external stakeholders, whereby their perceptions are the resu lt of internal (e.g. controlled media ) and external (e.g. uncontrolled media ) communications from and about an organization (Bentele, 1994).

PAGE 40

32 32 The nine attributes Bentele id entified as contributing to high trust levels, namely, expertise ability to solve problems communication ability communication adequacy communication consistency communication transparency communication frankness social responsibility and an ethic of responsibility will be used in this study to measure public trust With public image and public trust defined, one more measurement to be tested is the way in which communication outputs, specifically controlled and uncontrolled media affect these factors. The following section wi ll briefly describe the two types of media, as well as provide a model that may be used to describe the relati onship that exists among these two types of media with public image public trust and with the existing relationship factors or trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality Communication As previously stated, measuring long -term outcomes in public relations is important. However, measuring public relations solely in terms of relationships may not be the most effective way to assess a successful public relations depa rtment, especially if the public relations practitioners are not re sponsible for creation and maintenance of those relationships. Since practitioners are responsibl e for communication practices within an organization, the question become s “how do public relations practitioners’ communications outputs contri bute to the long-term outco mes of an organization?” Four models of public relations ha ve been used to produce communication outputs (Hunt & J. E. Grunig, 1994, p.8). These models are press agentry public information two-way asymmetrical and two-way symmetrical Press agentry and public information are considered one-way models that describe communication programs that

PAGE 41

33 33 are not based on research and stra tegic planning. They are also asymmetrical in that they try to change the behavior of publics but not of the organization. These methods try to make the organization look good through propa ganda or by disseminating only favorable information about an organization. The two-way asymmetrical model uses research to develop messages that are likely to persua de strategic publics to behave as the organization wants. This method is more effective than one-way models because it includes research on attitudes of publics. Ho wever, this model is limited because the organization that uses it often be lieves it is correct and the public is wrong. It is best used when an organization has low conflict with its public, for example in a health campaign about heart attacks. The two-way symmetrical model is based on research and uses communication to manage conflict and improve understanding with strategic publics. The model is based on negotiation and compromi se, allows the question of what is right to be settled by negotiation, and is a more ethical practice. These four models employ either controlled or uncontrolled media methods (Matera & Artigue, 1999). Controlled media are defined as print (e.g. brochures, written reports, and attitude or information surveys), audiovisual methods (e.g. institutional films, oral presentations with visu als, and on-hold recorded messages), interpersonal methods (e.g. formal speeches, committee meetings, and social gatherings), and electronic methods (e.g. television advertisements, el ectronic news releases, and Web sites). Although expensive, an organization has the ability to c ontrol the content, distribution, reach, and design of controlled media. Uncontrolled media are defined as interpersonal media (e.g. community meetings news conferences, and focus groups) and formal media (e.g. news releases, content of pr int and broadcast media, and letters to the

PAGE 42

34 34 editor). These types of media are typically in expensive, and tend to have more credibility than controlled media. Model The following model defines the constructs that will be tested in this study (Figure 1). This model identifies the ways in which communication outputs may affect communication outcomes ( public image public trust and organization-public relationships). Note the arrows from th e Communication Outputs circle are two-way toward the communication outcomes. This im plies that outputs may affect outcomes. For example, a media campaign may affect public image and once public image is measured, practitioners may have a better idea of how to modify their future outputs. The arrows between the communication outco mes are two-way, thus implying that the constructs may influence each other. Fo r example, a stakeholder group perceiving a strong organization-public rela tionship may perceive strong public trust or the opposite may be true where a stakeholder group perceiving a weak organization-public relationship may perceive weak public trust

PAGE 43

35 35 Figure 1. Long-term effects of communication outputs model PUBLIC IMAGE ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC RELATIONSHIPS PUBLIC TRUST COMMUNICATION OUTPUTS

PAGE 44

36 36 Based on this model, this study will aim to answer the following research questions: RQ 1. Is it possible to build one reliable construct for public image or do separate constructs of rhetoric behavior representation and visual impression exist? RQ 2. Is it possible to build a reliable construct for public trust ? RQ 3. What is the relationship between public image and the previously defined relationship variables of trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality ? RQ 4. What is the relationship between public trust and the previously defined relationship variables of trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality ? RQ 5. Is there a relationship between public trust and the trust construct defined by Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999)? RQ 6. Is there a relationship between public trust and public image ? RQ 7. How do controlled a nd uncontrolled media affect public trust public image and the existing relationship variables of trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality ? RQ 8. How do respondents’ de mographic variables affect public trust public image and the existing relationship variables of trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality ?

PAGE 45

37 37 Chapter Three METHODS This methodology section is divided into four subsections identified as The Organization, Respondent and Survey Administ ration, Survey Instrument, and Analytical Method. The section begins with a brief de scription of the study organization and the way in which respondents were chosen and su rveyed. Next a more detailed account of the survey instrument is provided. This includes the previously defined relationship items for trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality as well as the newly defined public image and public trust items created specifically for this study. Finally, the statistical tests used to answer each research question are identified. The Organization This study was motivated specifically by the relationship studies conducted by Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) and Huang (2001). Th e research site chosen for this study is the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC).1 The FWC is a state government organization that employs over 1,800 staff with offices located statewide. The organization is responsible for managi ng, regulating, and enforcing state fish and wildlife regulations, thus stakeholder involve ment encompasses the organization at all levels. Saltwater fishermen or anglers ar e one of FWC’s most active publics, thus a 1 The FWC was formed in July 1999 as the result of a merger between other state organizations. Floridians voted for this merger during the 1998 General Electio n, thus creating a new constitutional amendment. The amendment merged only the marine aspects (research management, and law enforcement) of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) with the entire Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission (GFC). The DEP still exists and is a co mpletely separate state organization from FWC; however, the GFC no longer exists (FWC, 2003).

PAGE 46

38 38 subsample of this population was surveyed due to their high level of involvement with the organization. Respondents and Survey Administration A convenience sample of 5,799 saltwater angl ers was used to test this survey instrument. A previous survey administer ed by FWC via its Web site asked respondents for help with future surveys. Those who agr eed to help with future surveys supplied their names and email addresses, thus allowi ng FWC to build a mailing list of over 5,000 participants. The questionnaire was located on a secure FWC Web site. Participants were notified via email on Thursday, January 22, 2004 at noon and were provided a direct link to the survey in that email. Two emails were sent to the participant group, the first is illustrated in Appendix A and was sent on January 22, 2004. Appendix B illustrates the second email sent on February 2, 2004 as a reminder to complete the questionnaire if participants had not already done so. Both em ails stated the purpose of the questionnaire, the fact that a USF graduate student was conducting the stud y, and that all answers were completely anonymous and conf idential (Dillman, 2002). Respondents were also asked not to forwar d the survey to other saltwater anglers in an effort to control the population. Desp ite this request; howeve r, the link was posted to two different Fishing Forums on the on line version of the most popular fishing magazine in Florida (Florida Sportsman Magazine, 2004). Respondents proceeded to discuss their answers after completing and submitting the questionnaire.

PAGE 47

39 39 Survey Instrument Appendix C illustrates the survey instrument, as it appeared online. A 65-item questionnaire was administered in an attempt to measure public image ; public trust ; the Hon and J. E. Grunig constructs of trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality ; controlled and uncontrolled media usage; and finally demographic information. Respondents answered each statement base d on a 9-point Likert-type scale, where 1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Neither Disagree/Nor Agree, and 9=Strongly Agree. All items, except the demographics, were required fiel ds for completion. Respondents were unable to submit an incomplete questionnaire a nd would receive a message stating which question was left unanswered afte r hitting the “Submit” button. A two-staged pretest of the survey inst rument was conducted by administering the questionnaire to a dozen people inside and out side the study organiza tion. The first stage included administering the test to colleague s and analysts who c ould identify problems with the electronic instrument, such as buttons malfunctioning. This group was also used to determine the level of understanding peopl e had of each question; and, to determine production errors, such as asking appropriate que stions. In the second stage, six people who were considered potentia l respondents were tested to determine their level of understanding of words and question, appropria teness of the scale, and length of time it took to complete the questionna ire (Dillman, 2000). As a result of the pretest, the phrase “neither disagree/nor agree” was added to the Likert-type scale. Initially, an effort was made to create four construct variables under public image which are defined as rhetoric behavior reputation and visual impression Each construct was represented by a minimum of thr ee variables. Items were designed to read

PAGE 48

40 40 similarly to the Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) it ems illustrated in their relationship scale. The following items were used to measure rhetoric : I believe FWC supplies accurate information to the media. I believe FWC supplies accurate information to the public. I feel FWC spokespersons accurately represent FWC. The following items were used to measure behavior : I believe FWC invites stakeholders to communicate in open discussions about Florida’s fish and wildlife issues. I believe FWC is responsive to the need s of Florida’s saltwater anglers. I believe FWC has good standing with lo cal and state elected officials. I believe FWC listens to public input. The following items were used to measure representation : I feel FWC’s literature portrays an accurate image of the organization. I feel FWC is managing Florida’s fish a nd wildlife for the animals’ long-term well-being. I feel FWC is managing Florida’s fish and wildlife for the benefit of the people. I perceive other saltwater anglers feel FWC is managing Florida’s fish and wildlife for the long-term we ll-being of the animals. I perceive other saltwater anglers feel FWC is managing Florida’s fish and wildlife for the benefit of the people. I believe FWC has top quality literature and publications. I feel most saltwater angler s in Florida know about FWC.

PAGE 49

41 41 I feel FWC is recognized most often in a positive manner by the media (newspapers, television, magazines, etc.). I perceive that other salt water anglers feel FWC is accurately represented by the media (newspapers, television, magazines, etc.). I feel FWC is accurately represented by the media (newspapers, television, magazines, etc.). The following items were used to measure visual impression : I think FWC is a credible organization. I think FWC and the Florida Game an d Fish Commission are two separate state organizations. I think FWC and the Florida Marine Research Institute are two separate organizations. Whenever I see this l ogo I think of FWC. See Appendix D Whenever I see this l ogo I think of FWC. See Appendix E Public trust was defined by the nine attributes Bentele (1994) identified as contributing to high trust levels. These nine attributes are: expertise ability to solve problems communication ability communication adequacy communication consistency communication transparency communication frankness social responsibility and an ethic of responsibility The items specifically stated: I believe FWC is a responsible organization and follows the appropriate rules. I feel FWC is honest when communicating. I feel FWC has the ability to co mmunicate with its stakeholders. I believe FWC supplies enough information to the media.

PAGE 50

42 42 I believe FWC has the expertise to deal with the issues it is responsible for. I believe FWC’s communications are always consistent. I believe FWC supplies enough information to the public. I think FWC has the ability to solve problems quickly and efficiently. I believe FWC has a strong social responsibility. Hon and J. E. Grunig’s (1999) relationship scale (survey) was used to measure the external stakeholders’ percep tions of their relationship s with FWC. Twenty-one variables were used to m easure the constructs of trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality The communal and exchange relationship variable constructs were not tested because they are used to define the type of relationship that exists between two groups, which was not the goal of this study. Four ordinal questions were asked in re lation to the method in which respondents receive most of their information about th e organization under study and the method in which they seek information about the or ganization. The response choices are broken down into controlled (brochures, exhibits and displays video tapes, Web sites, oral presentations with visual aids) and uncontrolled media (news releases, content of print media, content of broadcast media, public workshops, and employee representation). Demographic data collected from each surv ey included respondents’ ages, highest level of education completed, sex, how often th ey fish in saltwater each month, whether or not they are a Florida resi dent, whether or not they hold a current Florida recreational saltwater fishing license, and the county in which they live in Florida.

PAGE 51

43 43 Analytical Method Completed data were automatically compiled into an Excel spreadsheet once respondents hit the “Subm it” button at the end of the elect ronic questionnaire. These data were then transferred into SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) 11.0 for Windows, which was used to analyze all data. A .05 level of statistical significance was applied for analyses where relevant (Stacks, 2002). Descriptive statistics we re conducted to determine frequencies, means, and standard deviations for all items. Cronbach ’s alpha coefficient was used to test the reliability of items for public image public trust and the relationship variables of trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality Values between .80 and 1.00 were accepted as reliable (Stacks, 2002). A pretes t for validity was not conducted on the items within the study’s questionnaire because this study is viewed more as a case study and the results are the pretes t to future surveys. Factor analysis was used to answer RQ 1, which states, “Is it possible to build one reliable construct for public image or do four separa te constructs of rhetoric behavior representation and visual impression exist?” More specifically, all variables associated with public image were subjected to factor analysis For all analysis, factors were determined when items within that factor lo aded greater than .60 and not greater than .40 on any other factor (Stack s, 2002). Also, the ratio of items to respondents was approximately 1:18, thus more than adequate. Cronbach’s alpha was then used to meas ure reliability of each index (Stacks, 2002). One public image construct was created, and thus became the construct tested to answer the remainder of rese arch questions respective to public image

PAGE 52

44 44 Factor analysis was also used to answer RQ 2. All public trust variables were subjected to factor analysis a nd, as a result, one construct for public trust was created. This became the construct used to answer the remainder of research questions respective to public trust Cronbach’s alpha was then used to measure reliability of each index. Correlation analysis was used to answer RQ 3 and RQ 4, which were to determine the effect of public image and public trust on the relationship variables of trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality respectively. Correlation analysis was also used to answer RQ 5 and RQ6 to dete rmine whether a relati onship exists between public trust and the trust construct defined by Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999), and public image and public trust respectively. RQ 7 was answered with one-way an alysis of variance (ANOVA). ANOVAs were utilized to test the effects that controlled and uncontrolled media had on public image public trust and the four relationship constr ucts. ANOVAs were also used to answer RQ 8 to determine any effects the demographics may have on p ublic image public trust trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality For all ANOVAs, the Scheffe and LSD post hoc tests were used to determine conservative and liberal differences betw een groups (Stacks, 2002). Also, it is recommended that Scheffe be used when testing new theory. Significance was determined at a 95 percent confidence level (p>.05).

PAGE 53

45 45 Chapter Four RESULTS The following section describes the result s found through statistic al analyses. The section begins with an explication of respondent demographics followed by the results and tables used to an swer each research question. Demographics A reliable response rate cannot be reporte d for this study due to posting of the survey link on the Internet. A total of 1,193 completed questionnaires were submitted at the end of the two-week pe riod respondents were given to complete the survey.2 Almost half of the respondents (n=570, 47.8%) submitte d completed questionnaires within the first 24-hours from the time of the original email. Table 1 describes respondent demographics Respondents ranged in age from less than 20 years old to great er than 80 years old; however the majority of respondents fell between the ages of 30 to 59 (n =941, 78.9%). More males (n=1080, 93.8%) answered the questionnaire th an females (n=71, 6.2%). A ll, but 14, respondents have some type of formal education and the ma jority (n=853, 71.5%) have at least a high school diploma/GED (n=264, 22.1 %), associate of arts (n =268, 22.5%), or bachelors degree (n=321, 26.9%). 2 Although a response rate could not be reported, a to tal of 662,890 saltwater fishing licenses were sold in Florida as of the date this study was conducted. According to the respondents, 1,082 (.16%) of them hold a current saltwater fishing license.

PAGE 54

46 46 Respondents were asked how often they fish in saltwater each mont h in Florida, if they are a Florida resident, and if they hold a current Florida recreational saltwater fishing license. Over 75-per cent (n=897, 75.2%) responded that they fish in saltwater somewhere between 0-9 times each month; th e majority are Florida residents (n=1,119, 93.8); and most hold a current Florida recr eational saltwater fishing license (n=1082, 90.7%).

PAGE 55

47 47 Finally, residents were asked to supply th e county in which they live, and all but five counties (Calhoun, DeSoto, Hardee, Ma dison, and Suwanee) in Florida were represented. Appendix F represents the number of re spondents by county. There was a wide distribution of respondents from th e remaining 62 counties; however, over onefourth (n=325, 27.2%) of the respondents cam e from just five counties, which are Table 1. Respondent Demographics Respondents (n) Percent (%) Age < 20 23 1.9 20 – 29 82 6.9 30 – 39 271 22.7 40 – 49 385 32.3 50 – 59 285 23.9 60 – 69 129 10.8 70 – 79 17 1.4 80 1 .1 Total 1,193 100% Sex Male 1080 93.8 Female 71 6.2 Total 1,193 100% Education Some formal education 123 10.3 High school diploma or GED 264 22.1 Associates degree 268 22.5 Bachelors degree 321 26.9 Masters degree 152 12.7 PhD 25 2.1 MD 14 1.2 Other 26 2.2 Total 1,193 100% Frequency fish in saltwater 0 – 4 445 37.3 5 – 9 452 37.9 10 – 14 136 11.4 15+ 160 13.4 Total 1,193 100% Florida Resident Yes 1,119 93.8 No 66 5.6 No response 8 .67 Total 1,193 100% Hold current fishing license Yes 1082 90.7 No 105 8.8 No response 6 .5 Total 1,193 100%

PAGE 56

48 48 Pinellas (n=79, 6.6), Brevard (n=77, 6.5%), Hillsborough (n=62, 5.2%), Duval (n=52, 4.4%), and Miami – Dade (n=55, 4.6%). Al most half of the re spondents (n=538. 45.1%) came from just ten counties. The organization under study assigned each county to one of five regions throughout the state: northwest, north cen tral, southwest, south, and northeast. Appendix G is a map of each region and its respective counties. Table 2 identifies the number of respondents by region. Over half (n=675, 58.6 %) of the respondents who identified the county in which they live claimed residents in either the Southwest (n=355, 30.8%) or Northeast regions (n=320, 27.8%). Research Questions RQ 1: Is it possible to build one reliable construct for public image or do separate constructs of rhetoric behavior representation and visual impression exist? Factor analysis was used to determine whether indices exist between the public image variables. Only one index was factor ed; thus, this is the index referred to throughout the remainder of the an alysis unless otherwise noted. Table 3 illustrates the factor analysis for all items used to measure public image Items not included in the newly constructed public image construct are noted at the en d of the table in italics. Table 2. Respondent Counties by Region Region Respondents (n) Percents (%) Northwest 169 14.7 North Central 108 9.4 Southwest 355 30.8 South 199 17.3 Northeast 320 27.8 Total 1,151 100%

PAGE 57

49 49 Also, items were eliminated from the final f actor if their counter value was too high or they weighted into two factors (Stacks, 2002). Table 4 represents the 12 items th at factored out to define public image Although the items identified for public image did not weigh into four separate factors of rhetoric behavior representation and visual impression each item in this table is followed by its originally intended factor na me for demonstration purposes. Means and standard deviations are given for each item. The construct mean was somewhat above average at 5.72 (SD=1.79) and Cronbach’s al pha reliability measured .96, thus proving that the 12-items factored out for public image are reliable measures. Table 3. Public image index after factor analysis Items Factor value I believe FWC supplies accurate information to the media. .774 I believe FWC supplies accurate information to the public. .791 I believe FWC invites stakeholders to communi cate in open discussions about Florida’s fish and wildlife issues. .707 I believe FWC is responsive to the need s of Florida’s saltwater anglers. .875 I believe FWC listens to public input. I feel FWC’s literature portrays an accu rate image of the organization. .731 I feel FWC is managing Florida’s fish and wild life for the animals’ long-term well-being. .826 I feel FWC is managing Florida’s fish and wildlife for the benefit of the people of Florida. .855 I perceive other saltwater anglers feel FWC is managing Florida’s fish and wildlife for the long-term well-being of the animals. .807 I perceive other saltwater anglers feel FWC is managing Florida’s fish and wildlife for the benefit of the people. .818 I think FWC is a credible organization. .790 I think FWC and the Florida Game and Fish Commi ssion are two separate st ate organizations. .698 Whenever I see this logo I think of FWC. See Appendix D .309 Whenever I see this logo I think of FWC. See Appendix E .177 I believe FWC has good standing with lo cal and state elected officials. .230 I feel FWC is recognized most often in a positive manner by the media (newspapers, television, magazines, etc.). .388 I feel FWC is accurately represented by the media. .417 I perceive that other saltwater anglers feel FWC is accurately represented by the media (newspapers, television magazines, etc.). .516 I believe that FWC has top qual ity literature and publications. .586 I feel FWC spokespersons accurately represent FWC. .636* I feel most saltwater anglers in Florida know about FWC. .093 I think FWC and the Florida Marine Research Institute are two separate state organizations. .058 Italicized variables were removed ba sed upon factor analysis results and were not measured for reliability. *Item was removed from factor because the counter value was too high to use in just one factor.

PAGE 58

50 50 Table 5 represents the 22 measures and four constructs of rhetoric behavior representation and visual impression which were initially proposed to define public image All constructs, except visual impression ( = .59) had high reliability measures. Means and standard deviations are given fo r each item and construct. Construct means were average to somewhat high for all vari ables, except for the variable that asks respondents if they think of FWC when they see the secondary logo, where the mean was somewhat low (M=3.92). However, this table is strictly illustrati ve. These analyses have demonstrated that it is more effective to perform factor analysis prior to reliability testing. If one had just performed reliability testing, then these analyses would assume there are three reliable factors that measure public image rather than the one that was identified through factor analysis. Table 4. Mean and Standard Devi ations for Public Image Constructs Items M SD Public Image (n=1,193) = .96 5.72 1.79 I believe FWC supplies accurate information to the media. (Rhetoric) 5.95 2.18 I believe FWC supplies accurate information to the public. (Rhetoric) 5.84 2.06 I believe FWC invites stakeholders to communi cate in open discussions about Florida’s fish and wildlife issues. (Behavior) 5.91 2.09 I believe FWC is responsive to the needs of Fl orida’s saltwater anglers. (Behavior) 5.33 2.20 I believe FWC listens to public input. (Behavior) 5.01 2.25 I feel FWC’s literature portrays an accurate imag e of the organization. (Representation) 5.99 1.90 I feel FWC is managing Florida’s fish and wild life for the animals’ long-term well-being. (Representation) 5.96 2.27 I feel FWC is managing Florida’s fish and wildli fe for the benefit of the people of Florida. (Representation) 5.59 2.29 I perceive other saltwater anglers feel FWC is managing Florida’s fish and wildlife for the long-term well-being of the animals. (Representation) 5.37 2.11 I perceive other saltwater anglers feel FWC is managing Florida’s fish and wildlife for the benefit of the people. (Representation) 5.20 2.05 I think FWC is a credible organiza tion. (Visual Impression) 6.49 2.10 I think FWC and the Florida Game and Fish Co mmission are two separate state organizations. (Visual Impression) 5.99 2.17 Items were measured on a 9-point scale where 1=Strongly Disagree an d 9=Strongly Agree.

PAGE 59

51 51 Therefore, the answer to RQ1 is that onl y one construct can be used to define public image Although reliability testing found that three of the four initially proposed indices measured reliable ( rhetoric behavior and representation ), these indices were not individually weighted through f actor analysis and thus are determined to be unreliable measures of public image Thus, the items were not completely eliminated; rather they are now identified within the new public image construct. Table 5. Mean and Standard Deviations for Four Proposed Public Image Constructs Items M SD Rhetoric (n=1,193) = .87 5.81 1.82 I believe FWC supplies accurate information to the media. 5.95 2.18 I believe FWC supplies accurate information to the public. 5.84 2.06 I feel FWC spokespersons accura tely represent FWC. 5.64 1.91 Behavior (n=1,193) = .82 5.55 1.71 I believe FWC invites stakehol ders to communicate in open discussions about Florida’s fish and wildlife issues. 5.91 2.09 I believe FWC is responsive to the needs of Florida’s saltwater anglers. 5.33 2.20 I believe FWC has good standing with loca l and state elected officials. 5.97 1.77 I believe FWC listens to public input. 5.01 2.25 Representation (n=1,193) = .91 5.71 1.54 I feel FWC’s literature portrays an accura te image of the organization. 5.99 1.90 I feel FWC is managing Florida’s fish and wildlife for the animals’ longterm well-being. 5.96 2.27 I feel FWC is managing Florida’s fish and wildlife for the benefit of the people of Florida. 5.59 2.29 I perceive other saltwater anglers fe el FWC is managing Florida’s fish and wildlife for the long-term well-being of the animals. 5.37 2.11 I perceive other saltwater anglers fe el FWC is managing Florida’s fish and wildlife for the benefit of the people. 5.20 2.05 I believe FWC has top quality lit erature and publications. 6.13 1.86 I feel most saltwater anglers in Florida know about FWC. 6.46 2.13 I feel FWC is recognized most often in a positive manner by the media (newspapers, television, magazines, etc.). 5.96 1.81 I perceive that other saltwater anglers feel FWC is accurately represented by the media (newspapers, television, magazines, etc.). 5.09 1.90 I feel FWC is accurately represented by the media (newspapers, television, maga zines, etc.). 5.34 1.97 Visual Impression (n=1,193) = .59 5.82 1.45 I think FWC is a credible organization. 6.49 2.10 I think FWC and the Florida Game and Fish Commission are two separate state organizations. 5.99 2.17 I think FWC and the Florida Marine Research Institute are two separate organizations. 6.25 2.58 Whenever I see this logo I think of FWC. See Appendix D 6.46 2.55 Whenever I see this logo I think of FWC. See Appendix E 3.92 2.60 Items were measured on a 9-point scale where 1=Strongly Disagree an d 9=Strongly Agree.

PAGE 60

52 52 Table 6 illustrates correlation results used to determine any relationship that exists between public image and either the organization’s main logo or secondary logo ; and the item “I think FWC and the Florida Fish and Game Commissi on are two separate state organizations.” These items were chosen for correlation analysis because they are three items used by the organization of study to specifically identify that organization to its stakeholders. Significant results (p<. 001) determined a moderate relationship (r=.424) between public image and the main logo a weak relationship (r=.260) between public image and the secondary logo and strong relationship (r=.750) between public image and the item “I think FWC and the Flor ida Fish and Game Commission are two separate state organizations.” RQ 2: Is it possible to bu ild a reliable construct for public trust ? Table 7 illustrates factor analysis results for public trust These results show that all but one variable reliably measured public trust The variable removed from the new construct was “I believe FWC has a strong social responsibility.” Table 6: Correlati ons Among Public Image a nd Organizational Factors Public Image Main Logo r=. 424* p=. 000 Secondary Logo r=. 260* p=. 000 I think FWC and the Florida Game and Fi sh Commission are two separate state organizations. r=.750* p=. 000 *p<. 001

PAGE 61

53 53 Table 8 identifies the means and standard deviations for public trust Item means were mostly ranged from slightly below average (M=4.93, SD=2.09) to slightly above average (M=6.16, SD=2.04). Overa ll, the construct mean for public trust was slightly above average (M=5.54, SD=1.68). Cronbach ’s alpha of .92 further supported the reliability of this construct; therefore, it is possible to build a reliable construct for public trust Table 7. Public trust index after factor analysis Items Factor value I believe FWC is a responsible organizatio n and follows the appropriate rules. .843 I feel FWC is honest when communicating. .863 I feel FWC has the ability to comm unicate with its stakeholders. .782 I believe FWC supplies enough info rmation to the media. .750 I believe FWC has the expertise to deal wi th the issues it is responsible for. .812 I believe FWC’s communications are always consistent. .850 I believe FWC supplies enough in formation to the public. .791 I think FWC has the ability to solve problems quickly and efficiently. .744 I believe FWC has a strong social responsibility. .480 Italicized variables were removed ba sed upon factor analysis results and were not measured for reliability. Table 8. Means and Standard Devia tions for Public Trust Construct Items M SD Public Trust (n=1,193) =. 92 5.54 1.68 I believe FWC has the expertise to deal with the issues it is responsible for. 6.03 2.11 I believe FWC’s communications ar e always consistent. 5.31 2.06 I believe FWC supplies enough info rmation to the public. 4.93 2.09 I believe FWC supplies enough inform ation to the media. 4.99 2.09 I think FWC has the ability to solve problems quickly and efficiently. 4.94 2.17 I feel FWC has the ability to communi cate with its stakeholders. 5.99 2.02 I feel FWC is honest wh en communicating. 5.93 2.11 I believe FWC is a responsible organization and follows the appropriate rules. 6.16 2.04 I believe FWC has a strong social responsibility. Items were measured on a 9-point scale where 1=Strongly Disagree an d 9=Strongly Agree. Italicized variables were removed based upon factor analysis results.

PAGE 62

54 54 Table 9 illustrates correlation results used to determine any relationship that exists between public trust and either the organization’s main logo or secondary logo ; and the item “I think FWC and the Florida Fish and Game Commissi on are two separate state organizations.” Again, these items were chosen for correlation analysis because they are three items used by the organizati on of study to specifically identify that organization to its stakeholde rs. Significant results (p<. 001) determined a moderate relationship (r=. 408) between public image and the main logo a weak relationship (r=. 282) between public trust and the secondary logo and strong relationship (r=. 665) between public trust and the item “I think FWC a nd the Florida Fish and Game Commission are two separate state organizations.” RQ 3. What is the relationship between public image and the previously defined relationship variables of trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality ? To first answer RQ 3 and RQ 4, reliab ility testing was c onducted on the Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) constructs of trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality Factor analysis was not used to answer this question since these c onstructs have already Table 9: Correlati ons Among Public Trust and Organizational Factors Public Trust Main Logo r=. 408* p=. 000 Secondary Logo r=. 282* p=. 000 I think FWC and the Florida Game and Fi sh Commission are two separate state organizations. r=.665* p=. 000 *p<. 001

PAGE 63

55 55 been defined by Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) and thus were tested based upon their operationalization of the constructs. Table 10 identifies the means and standard deviations for the items associated with these four indices. As with public trust construct means ranged from slightly below average to above average: control mutuality (M=4.92, SD=1.74), trust (M=5.41, SD=1.84), satisfaction (M=5.67, SD=1.83), and commitment (M=6.27, SD=1.67), respectively. Cronbach’s alpha proved the reliability of each index ( trust =. 92, satisfaction =. 92, commitment =. 85, control mutuality =. 86). One item, which stated, “Compared to other organizations, I value my relationship w ith FWC more,” was eliminated within the commitment index due to a low alpha.

PAGE 64

56 56 Correlation analysis was conducted to de termine any relationships that exist between public image and trust satisfaction commitment or control mutuality Table 11 illustrates construct correlations All correlations yielded si gnificant values (p<. 001). Strong relationships with a large size effect size exist between public image and control mutuality (r=. 874, p<. 001) and very strong relati onships with large effect size exist between public image and trust (r=. 942, p<. 001), satisfaction (r=. 931, p<. 001), and commitment (r=. 907, p<. 001). Table 10. Means and Standard Devi ations for Relationship Constructs Items M SD Trust (n=1,193) =. 92 5.41 1.84 FWC treats saltwater anglers fairly and justly. 5.76 2.16 Whenever FWC makes an important decisi on, I know the orga nization will be concerned about saltwater anglers. 5.12 2.24 FWC can be relied on to k eep its promises. 5.37 2.17 I believe that FWC takes the opinions of saltwater anglers into account when making decisions. 5.03 2.23 I feel very confident about FWC’s skills. 5.63 2.13 FWC has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do. 5.54 2.11 Satisfaction (n=1,193) =. 92 5.67 1.83 I am happy with FWC. 5.80 2.10 Both FWC and saltwater anglers bene fit from the relationship. 6.47 2.12 Most saltwater anglers are happy in th eir interactions with FWC. 5.16 2.03 Generally speaking, I am pleased with th e relationship FWC has established with saltwater anglers. 5.47 2.18 Most people enjoy dealing with FWC. 5.46 2.06 Commitment (n=1,193) =. 85 6.27 1.67 I feel that FWC is trying to maintain a longterm commitment to saltw ater anglers. 6.24 1.98 I can see that FWC wants to maintain a re lationship with saltwater anglers. 5.90 2.11 There is a long-lasting bond between FWC and saltwater anglers. 5.31 2.17 I would rather work together with FWC than not. 7.62 1.78 Compared to other organization, I va lue my relationship with FWC more. Control Mutuality (n=1,193) =. 86 4.92 1.74 FWC and saltwater anglers are attentiv e to what each other say. 5.40 1.98 FWC believes the opinions of saltwate r anglers are legitimate. 5.40 2.27 In dealing with saltwater angl ers, FWC has a tendency to throw its weight around. 4.43 2.26 FWC really listens to what saltwa ter anglers have to say. 4.91 2.25 The management of FWC gives saltwat er anglers enough say in the decisionmaking process. 4.48 2.16 Items were measured on a 9-point scale where 1=Strongly Disagree an d 9=Strongly Agree. Italicized variables were rem oved from analysis due to low

PAGE 65

57 57 RQ 4. What is the relationship between public trust and the previously defined relationship variables of trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality ? Correlation analysis was conducted to de termine any relationships that exist between public trust and trust satisfaction commitment or control mutuality Table 12 illustrates construct correlations between indi ces. All correlations yielded significant values (p<. 001). Strong relationships with large effect size exist between public trust and satisfaction (r=. 880, p<. 001), commitment (r=. 835, p<. 001), and control mutuality (r=. 824, p<. 001) and a very strong relationship with a large effect size exists between public trust and trust (r=. 917, p<. 001). Table 11: Construct Correla tions with Public Image Trust Satisfaction Commitment Control Mutuality Public Image Trust Satisfaction r=. 915*** p=. 000 Commitment r=. 877*** r=. 905*** p=. 000 p=. 000 Control Mutuality r=. 888*** r=. 857*** r=. 800*** p=. 000 p=. 000 p=. 000 Public Image r=.942*** r=. 931*** r=. 907*** r=. 874*** p=. 000 p=. 000 p=. 000 p=. 000 ***p<. 001

PAGE 66

58 58 To further explore this relationshi p, factor analysis was run on the public trust items and all existing relationship variables ( trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality ). Table 13 reflects the results of this factor analysis where all, but four, of 30 items weighed into just one factor. It ems not included in the newly constructed public image construct are noted at the end of the tabl e in italics. These f our items came from the public trust control mutuality commitment and trust constructs, respective to the order they are listed in the table. Also, items were eliminated from the final factor if their counter value was too high or they weighted into two factors (Stack s, 2002). Cronbach’s alpha ( =. 98) further identified the reliability of this factor. Table 12: Construct Correla tions with Public Trust Trust Satisfaction Commitment Control Mutuality Public Trust Trust Satisfaction r=. 915*** p=. 000 Commitment r=. 877*** r=. 905*** p=. 000 p=. 000 Control Mutuality r=. 888*** r=. 857*** r=. 800*** p=. 000 p=. 000 p=. 000 Public Trust r=. 917*** r=. 880*** r=. 835*** r=. 824*** p=. 000 p=. 000 p=. 000 p=. 000 ***p<. 001

PAGE 67

59 59 RQ 5. Is there a relationship between public trust and the trust construct defined by Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999)? Correlation analysis was conducted to de termine any relationships that exist between public trust and trust Table 14 illustrates the correlation results, which yielded a very high correlation (r=. 917, p<. 001), indi cating a very strong relationship with a large effect size. Table 13. Factor analysis of pub lic trust, satisfaction, trust, commitment, and control mutuality Items Factor value I feel FWC is trying to maintain a long-te rm commitment to saltw ater anglers. .805 I am happy with FWC. .822 FWC and saltwater anglers are atten tive to what each other say. .790 FWC treats saltwater angler s fairly and justly. .835 The management of FWC gives saltwater angler s enough say in the decision-making process. .802 Most people enjoy dealing with FWC. .789 I believe FWC is a responsible organizatio n and follows the appropriate rules. .851 I feel FWC is honest when communicating. .865 Both FWC and saltwater anglers benefit from the relationship between them. .796 Whenever FWC makes an important decision, I k now the organization will be concerned about saltwater anglers. .887 There is a long-lasting bond between FWC and saltwater anglers. .856 I feel FWC has the ability to comm unicate with its stakeholders. .732 FWC can be relied on to keep its promises. .872 I believe FWC supplies enough info rmation to the media. .681 Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship FWC has established with saltwater anglers. .922 I believe FWC has the expertise to deal with the issues it is responsible for. .769 I can see that FWC wants to maintain a relationship with saltwater anglers. .863 FWC believes the opinions of salt water anglers are legitimate. .839 Most saltwater anglers are happy in their interactions with FWC. .859 I believe FWC’s communications are always consistent. .829 I believe FWC supplies enough information to the public. .718 I feel very confident about FWC’s skills. .867 Generally speaking, I am pleased with the relationship FWC has established with saltwater anglers. .926 I think FWC has the ability to solve problems quickly and efficiently. .694 I believe that FWC takes the opinion of saltwat er anglers into account when making decisions. .882 FWC really listens to what saltwater anglers have to say. .881 I believe FWC has a str ong social responsibility. .429 In dealing with saltwater anglers, FWC has a tendency to throw its weight around. .332 I would rather work together with FWC than not. .522 FWC has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do. .601* Italicized variables were removed ba sed upon factor analysis results and were not measured for reliability. *Item was removed from factor because the counter value was too high to use in just one factor.

PAGE 68

60 60 RQ 6. Is there a relationship between public trust and public image ? Correlation analysis was conducted to de termine any relationships that exist between public image and public trust Table 15 illustrates the correlation results, which yielded a very high correlati on (r=. 916, p<. 001), indicating a very strong relationship with a large effect size. RQ 7. How do controlled and uncontrolled media affect public trust public image and the existing relationship variables of trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality ? One-way Analysis of Variance was used to determine the effect of the six constructs defined in this study on controll ed or uncontrolled medi a. Respondents were asked two questions regarding controlled a nd uncontrolled media. Respondents were asked to define the way in which they seek information about the study organization and Table 14: Construct correlation between public trust and trust Public Trust Trust r=. 917*** p=. 000 *** p<. 001 Table 15: Construct correlation betw een public image and public trust Public Image Public Trust r=. 916*** p=. 000 *** p<. 001

PAGE 69

61 61 the way in which they receive information about the study organi zation. This study did not yield any significant diffe rences between the media use of respondents and their effects on public image public trust or the other rela tionship constructs. RQ 8. How do respondents’ demographic variables affect public trust public image and the existing relationship variables of trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality ? ANOVA tests were conducted to identify any effects respondents’ demographics had on any of the six constructs defined in this study. Only the age education and region demographics yielded diffe rences among constructs. Tables 16 17 and 18 illustrate these results. Table 16 illustrates ANOVA results between age as the independent variable and the six constructs as the dependent variable s. Since only one respondent fell within the 80+ category, this category was eliminated from the ANOVA testing so post hoc tests could be run. Only the construct of commitment (F=2.180, p<. 05) yielded significant results. Conservative Scheffe post hoc te sts did not yield sign ificant differences; therefore, the more liberal LSD test was conducted. Diffe rences were found among those aged 20 – 29 (n=82, M=6.70) and those aged 40 – 49 (n=385, M=6.23), 50 – 59 (n=285, M=6.14), 60 – 69 (n=129, M=6.19), and 70 – 79 (n=17, M=5.66). Differences were also found between the age groups of 30 – 39 (n=271, M=6.44) and 50 – 59 (n=285, M=6.14).

PAGE 70

62 62 Table 17 illustrates ANOVA results for region as the independent variable. Only the constructs of satisfaction (F=2.520, p<. 05), commitment (F=3.286, p<. 05), and control mutuality (F=3.224, p<. 05) yielde d significant results. Scheffe post hoc tests show signifi cant differences (p<. 05) for satisfaction between those who live in the southwest region (n=355, M=5.86) and the northwest region (n=320, M=5.42); again for commitment between those who live in the southwest region (n=355, M=6.48) and the northwest region (n=320, M=6.03); and again for control mutuality between those who live in the southwest region (n=355, M=5.15) and the northwest region (n=320, M=4.68). The LSD post hoc tests also s how significant differences for satisfaction (p<. 005) between those who live in the southwest region (n=355, M=5.86) and those who live in the northwest region (n=320, M=5.42); again for commitment (p<. 001) between those Table 16: ANOVA between six c onstruct variables and age Age Trust F=1.451 p<. 19 Satisfaction F=1.838 p<. 09 Commitment F=2.180 p<. 04 Control Mutuality F=1.693 p=. 12 Public Image F=1.971 p<. 07 Public Trust F=1.165 p<. 32 p<. 05

PAGE 71

63 63 who live in the southwest region (n=355, M=6.48) and the northwest region (n=320, M=6.03); and again for control mutuality (p<.001) between t hose who live in the southwest region (n=355, M=5.15) and the northwest region (n=320, M=4.68). Table 18 illustrates ANOVA results for educatio n as the independent variable. These results show that edu cation has a significant effect on all independent variables where trust (F=3.644), satisfaction (F=3.467), commitment (F=3.733), control mutuality (F=3.560), public image (F=3.265) were significant at less than .005 and public trust (F=4.845) was significant at .001. Table 17: ANOVA between six cons truct variables and region Region Trust F=2.009 p=.09 Satisfaction F=2.520* p<. 05 Commitment F=3.286* p<. 05 Control Mutuality F=3.224* p<. 05 Public Image F=2.057 p=.08 Public Trust F=1.604 p=.17 *p<. 05

PAGE 72

64 64 Conservative Scheffe post hoc tests onl y yielded significan t differences for control mutuality and public trust Differences for control mutuality lie between those who answered the other category (n=26, M=3.73) and those with either a high school diploma/GED (n=264, M=5.09) or a bachelor’s degree (n=321, M=5.13). Differences for public trust lie between those who answered the other category (n=26, M=4.11) and those with a high school diploma/GED (n=264, M=5.78), an associate’s degree (n=268, M=5.47), or a bachelor’s degree (n=321, M=5.68). The more liberal LSD post hoc test yi elded significant differences for all constructs. Specific diffe rences for interpersonal trust occurred between those who answered other (n=26, M=4.24) and those who have some formal education (n=123, M=5.31), a high school diploma/GED (n=264, M=5.64), an associate’s degree (n=268, Table 18: ANOVA between six constr uct variables and education Education Trust F=3.644* p<. 005 Satisfaction F=3.467* p<. 005 Commitment F=3.733* p<. 005 Control Mutuality F=3.560* p<. 005 Public Image F=3.265* p<. 005 Public Trust F=4.845** p<. 001 p<. 005 ** p<. 001

PAGE 73

65 65 M=5.34), a bachelor’s degree (n=321, 5.58), a master’s degree (n=152, M=5.18), and an MD (n=14, M=5.49). Differences were also found between those with a PhD (n=25, M=4.63) and those with either a high school diploma/GED (n=264, M=5.64) or a bachelor’s degree ((n=321, 5.58); those with a master’s degree (n=152, M=5.18) and either those with a high school diploma/GED (n=264, M=5.64) or a bachelor’s degree (n=321, 5.58). LSD tests for satisfaction yielded differences betw een those who answered other (n=26, M=4.58) and those who have some formal education (n=123, M=5.46), a high school diploma/GED (n=264, M=5.88), an associate’s degree (n=268, M=5.65), bachelor’s degree (n=321, M=5.86), or master’s degree (n=152, M=5.41). Differences were also found between those who have a PhD (n= 25, M=5.02) and those who either have a high school diploma/GED (n=264, M=5.88) or bachelor’s degree (n=321, M=5.86); those who have a master’s degree (n=152, M=5.41) and those who have a high school diploma/GED (n=264, M=5.88); and those who have some formal education (n=123, M=5.46) and either a high school diploma/GED (n=264, M=5.88) or a bachelor’s degree (n=321, M=5.86). LSD tests for commitment yielded differences between those who answered some formal education (n=123, M=5.97) and those who have a high school diploma/GED (n=264, M=6.41), associate’s degree (n=268, M=6.33), or bachelor’s degree (n=321, M=6.45). Differences were also found between those who answered other and those who had a high school diploma/GED (n=264, M=6.41), associate’s degree (n=268, M=6.33), or bachelor’s degree (n=321, M=6.45); and those who had a PhD (n=25, M=5.58) and those who had a high school diploma/GED (n=264, M=6.41), associate’s degree (n=268,

PAGE 74

66 66 M=6.33), or bachelor’s degree (n=321, M=6.45); those who had a master’s degree (n=25, M=5.58) and those who had a high school diploma/GED (n=264, M=6.41) or bachelor’s degree (n=321, M=6.45). LSD tests for control mutuality yielded differences between those who answered other (n=26, M=3.73) and those who had some formal education (n=123, M=5.97), a high school diploma/GED (n=264, M=6.41), an associate’s degree (n=268,M=6.33), a bachelor’s degree (n=321, M=6.45), or a master’s degree (n=152, M=6.02). Other differences were found between those who had a PhD (n=25, M=4.36) and those who had either a high school diploma/GED (n=264, M=6.41) or a bachelor’s degree (n=321, M=6.45); those who had a bachelor’s degree (n=321, M=6.45) and some formal education (n=123, M=5.97). LSD tests for public image yielded differences between those who answered other (n=26, M=4.79) and those who had some formal education (n=123, M=5.54), a high school diploma/GED (n=264, M=5.95), an associate’s degree (n=268, M=5.67), or a bachelor’s degree (n=321, M=5.88). Other differen ces were found between those who had a PhD (n=25, M=4.93) and those who had a high school diploma/GED (n=264, M=5.95), an associate’s degree (n=268, M=5.67), or a bachelor’s degree (n=321, M=5.88); and those who had a high school diploma/GED (n=264, M=5.95) with those who had a master’s degree (n=152, M=5.50). LSD tests for public trust yielded differences between those who answered other (n=26, M=4.11) and those who had some formal education (n=123, M=5.44), a high school diploma/GED (n=264, M=5.78), an associate’s degree (n=268, M=5.47), a bachelor’s degree (n=321, M=5.68), a master’s degree (n=152, M=5.36), or an MD

PAGE 75

67 67 (n=14, M=5.47). Other differences we re found between those who had a PhD (n=25, M=4.85) and those who either had a high school diploma/GED (n=264, M=5.78) or a bachelor’s degree (n=321, M=5.68); and those who had a high school diploma/GED (n=264, M=5.78) and those who had an associate’s degree (n=268, M=5.47) or a master’s degree (n=152, M=5.36).

PAGE 76

68 68 Chapter Five DISCUSSION As stated previously, the existing scal es by Huang (1997) and Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) were designed to measure the t ype and strength of an organization-public relationship. They were designed under the assumption that practit ioners are directly involved in creating and mainta ining such relationships. However, they do not address measuring long-term effects of public rela tions programs where practitioners are not involved with or responsible for interpersonal relationships. Thus, the purpose of the current investig ation was to explore whether factors, such as public image and public trust can be used to measure the long-term effects of public relations programs. The results suggest that public image and public trust are reliable constructs for measuring the long-te rm effects of public relations programs, and, in fact, add a new dimension to the existing measurement scales. The study also suggests that these two factors can a ffect stakeholders’ perceptio ns of their interpersonal relationships with an organization. The follo wing discussion will review the results of this study regarding the effects of public image and public trust ; the relationship factors versus public image and public trust ; communication; and, finally, a summary of the results in relation to the model of long-term effects of communication that was previously proposed.

PAGE 77

69 69 Public Image and its effects The results of this study showed through factor analysis that 12 items reliably measured public image The items used to measure public image addressed issues such as respondents’ perception of the organization’ s ability to supply accurate information to the media and public, credibility, ability to ach ieve its mission, and ability to listen. All means ranged between 5.01 and 5.99 on a 9-point scale, except one where respondents had a stronger perception of the or ganization’s credib ility (M=6.49). The four initial dimensions predicted to measure public image – rhetoric behavior representation and visual impression – did not weigh into four separate factors for this study. Although these factors did not weigh out separately, items used to identify each weighed into the final public image factor; thus, confirming the need to include information discussed by image scholars related to these four factors, but not to separate the measurement in to four separate factors (Emrich, Brower, Feldman, & Garland, 2001; Baker, 2001; Desanto & Garner, 2001; Day, Dong, Robins, 2001). The results of the public image analysis also identified the ability to measure public image as an external factor. It confirms Hatch and Schultz’s (1997) definition of image where image is influenced by the everyday in teractions between organizational members, such as public relations practitioners and external audience s. All items were written for and tested by the organizati on’s external stake holders. Although, public image was not defined or tested as an internal factor within this study, it may be possible to administer the same instrument to the orga nization’s internal stakeholders to test their perception of public image or perhaps their percepti ons of their stakeholders’ public

PAGE 78

70 70 image Results from these analyses would support scholars who view image as internal and external to an organization (Kazoleas, Kim, & Moffitt, 2001). Identity was defined as something that is projected by an organization and falls independent of external influences (Hatch & Schultz, 1997). This study does not support the notion that public image is a separate concept from identity because the survey instrument did not specifically test for res pondents’ perceptions that fall independent of external influences. Furthermore, i dentity was also defined as a shared understanding of an organization’s unique characteristics presen ted by that organization to its internal and external audiences (Hatch and Schultz, 1997; Olins, 1989). This study only tested one specific external stakeholder group. No in ternal audiences were knowingly tested. Similarly, this study could not conclude whether differences exist between public image and reputation As stated previously, r eputation differs from image because images can be based on false perceptions and only organizations can create and communicate their true reputations to their publics (Baker, 2001). The survey instrument did not test for false perceptions, and it did not test for the actual reputation the organization attempts to portray. A longitudi nal study is needed to first determine the organization’s reputation since reputation was also defined as a stakeholder’s overall evaluation of a company over time (Gotsi and Wilson, 2001). Although some items did not weigh into the public image factor, significant findings were still observed within this study. Statements about the organization’s logo, standing with public officials, and quality of literature did not weigh into the public image factor. This is somewhat surprising as these issues are all discussed within image literature (DeSanto & Garner 2001; Day, Dong, & Robins, 2001) Perhaps these factors

PAGE 79

71 71 measure more of a recognition with an object, such as a logo, rather than a perception. This result led to further investigation into the questions addre ssing the organization’s two logos. These items stated, “Whenever I see this logo (main or secondary logo) I think of FWC. They did not start with “I think,” “I feel,” or “I believe,” implying perceptive responses. Correlation analysis was conducted and a moderate relationship (r=. 424, p<. 001) was detected between the main logo and public image and a weak relationship (r=. 260, p<. 001) was detected between the secondary logo and public image These results have both practical and th eoretical implications. The means were 6.9 and 3.9, respectively, which shows higher recognition of the main logo than the secondary logo Practically, this shows that more than one logo can be ineffective, unnecessary, and confusing. Th eoretically, this shows logo recognition is important to measure when assessing the long-term outcome s of public relations programs, even if included as a separate item that is measured independent of the public image factor. Finally, ANOVA testing yielded si gnificant findings between public image and the demographic of education Those who had some formal education (M=5.54) and those who had a PhD (M=4.94) tended to have lower means than those with a high school diploma/GED (M=5.95), associate’s degree (M=5.67), or a master’s degree (M=5.88). Thus, those with the least formal education, and those with the most formal education had lower public image levels than those in betw een the two. Ju stifying these results without qualitative meas ures leads to mere speculation. However, perhaps it is that the organization is not utilizing the appropriate communication tools to reach the different education or knowledge levels.

PAGE 80

72 72 Overall, public image was successfully operationalized through the items identified through factor analysis (Table 3). The items that weighed into this factor were about organizational literature, credibili ty, mission, and ability to supply accurate information. These items and the public image factor represent unive rsal duties of public relations practitioners. The mean of public image measured 5.72, which identified stakeholders’ perceptions of public image regarding this organizat ion as slightly high. This proves the importance for the inclusion of the public image factor when measuring the long-term outcomes of public relations programs. Public Trust and its effects Factor analysis showed that eight of nine items reliably measured public trust This analysis supports Bentele’s (1994) hypothesis that attributes, such as expertise ethic of responsibility communication ability communication adequacy communication consistency communication transparency communication frankness and ability to solve problems all contribute to high levels of public trust The results also confirm that what public relations practitio ners do in terms of communication is directly associated with and integral for building public trust between an organization and its stakeholders. This study also supports Bentele’s notion of basis trust He asserted that public trust (or personal trust) is based on the psychological mechanisms of basis trust where basis trust is the result of an act that leads to a communication relati onship. Therefore, the items within public trust which tested significant for this study, measured respondents’ perceptions of how well the organization maintains that communication relationship. Basis trust also contributes to public trust because public figures and organizations often project themselves thr ough the audiovisual media, which stimulate

PAGE 81

73 73 interpersonal contacts. This definition and the results of this st udy support the concept that a communicative relationship, which is not interpersonal, can exist between an organization and its publics. The one item that did not weigh into the public trust factor, which was strong social responsibility warrants more discussion. Perhaps it was the way in which respondents interpreted the phrase social responsibility The item stated, “I believe FWC has a strong social responsibility .” Bentele’s in terpretation of social responsibility is such that the organization has a responsibility for the welfare of people. However, this may be a product of Bentele’s European society, where social responsibility may be viewed as more important to the people than it is in United States. Furthermore, because the organization in this study is a government agency whose role is to manage fish and wildlife, respondents may feel it is more impor tant for the organiza tion to provide that service and not to provide soci al welfare. Therefore, this item may have been better stated as, “I believe FWC has a strong respons ibility to the public.” This supports the idea that survey instruments and measurement factors must be adjusted to the organization and culture one is testing (Huang, 2001a). One scholar defined public trust in relation to governmen t agencies; however, this survey instrument was designed for administra tion to any type of organization (Thomas, 1998). Scholars also argued that public trust is a media mediated process, where one of the most important elements is that of the i ssues and messages, where realities are created through media (Bentele, 1994; Thomas, 1998; Misztal, 2001). Although the items used to test controlled and uncontrolled media in this study yielded in significant results, the items used to define public trust and public image tested communication flows that came

PAGE 82

74 74 from inside the organization. For example, one public image item stated, “I believe FWC invites stakeholders to comm unicate in open discussion about Florida’s fish and wildlife issues.” A public trust item asked, “I believe FWC supplies enough information to the public.” Therefore, this study supports th e notion that the perception of public trust is the result of a mediated process. Public trust was successfully operationalized through the items identified through factor analysis (Table 7). The means for all items measuring public trust ranged from 4.93 to 6.16. Thomas (1998) pointed to the fact that the general pub lic knows relatively little about most government agencies. Th e organization in the study is a government agency and perhaps this helps to explain w hy respondent answers were more “middle of the road,” rather than closer to strongly agree or strongly disagree. Means for all variables fell around the same range as those for public trust so perhaps the rationale Thomas provided can help explain the overall va riable means in this study. The construct mean was 5.54, measuring slightly high. The reliability measure of .92 shows all items within this factor reliably measured public trust Overall, these results support the concept that public trust can measure long-term effects of public relations programs. The study also supports the no tion that the effects of public re lations efforts, such as those tested in public trust do have an effect on th e relationship factors – trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality Finally, ANOVA testing yielded si gnificant findings between public trust and education Those who responded to the other (M=4.11) category had significantly lower means than those with a high school diploma/GED (M=5.78), an associate’s degree

PAGE 83

75 75 (M=5.47), or a bachelor’s degree (M=5.68). Justifying these results without qualitative measures, and more insight into the other types of education, l eads to speculation. Relationship factors versus public image and public trust Cronbach’s alpha proved reliability of the four relationship constructs of trust (n=1,193, =. 92, M=5.41), satisfaction (n=1,193, =. 92, M=5.67), commitment (n=1,193, =. 85, M=6.27), and control mutuality (n=1,193, =. 86, M=4.92). The means for each construct indicate respondents perceive their relationship with the study organization to be slightly week to just slightly strong. Correlation analysis determined that strong relationships exist among these relationship variables and both public image and public trust Again, to explain why these relationships exist based upon quantitativ e research is difficult; however, one factor analysis test may provide some insight. F actor analysis was conduc ted on all reliable variables associated with public image public trust and the four relationship items associated with the six factors of trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality Results yielded that all but f our of thirty variables weighe d into just one factor, which leads to a question of whether or not th ese variables are all measuring the same dimension? It warrants a question of whether public image and public trust should be added to the existing relationship scales defined by Huang (1997) and Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) in an effort to measure the e ffects that both the t echnical and management factors or public relations program s have on the long-term outcomes. Conversely, further testing can be done to assess the effectiveness of the interpersonal trust defined in previous studies versus the public trust defined in this study. The concept of public trust in this study has provide d a more comprehensive

PAGE 84

76 76 measure of the universal roles for public relations as well as the effectiveness of those roles. Therefore, it may be possible to add some of the items of interpersonal trust factor to the public trust factor to allow an even greate r measure of overall stakeholder trust in an organization. Communication Four questions were used to address respondents’ media use. Two questions asked respondents how they would seek in formation about the organization and two questions addressed the type of media whereby they received information from the organization about the organization. For this study, media types were identified specific to controlled media (e.g. brochures, exhibi ts, and videotapes) and uncontrolled media (content of press media, public workshops and employee representatives). No statistically significant findings resulted from these four questions. Therefore, it may be more effective to measure communication through asymmetrical and symmetrical models, since these models employ both controlled and uncontrolled media (Matera & Artigue, 1999). Other scholars recognize th is approach as more effective when measuring communication efforts and effects (J. E. Grunig, 2001; L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002). Although the specific communica tion questions in this study yielded insignificant results, there are two practical implications resulting from th is study. The first is related to the communication items addressed within public image and public trust and how the results from these two factors can help to address organizational objectives. The Excellence Study set out to answer “how why, and to what extent communication affects the achievement of organizational objectiv es” (L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig, & Dozier,

PAGE 85

77 77 2002, p. ix.). Organizational objectives help se t public relations objec tives (Kelly, 2001). One objective for public relations is to build long-term relationships with stakeholders, which is achieved through communication. Thus, public image and public trust can, at minimum, help to answer “how” comm unication affects the achievement of organizational objectives based upon the results of this study. These two reliable factors were built around communication efforts, such as honesty and reliability of message dissemination. A direct relati onship was demonstrated betwee n these two factors and the four relationship factors, thus demonstra ting an effect on public relations objectives. According to Kelly (2001), “objectives enha nce the climate for changing attitudes and behaviors” (p.287). Therefore, kno wing stakeholders’ perceptions of public image and public trust will provide practitione rs the opportunity to adjust their communication efforts accordingly, which in return will ai d in adjusting attitudes and behaviors of stakeholders. This may lead the organization to achieve its objectives more efficiently and timely. The second practical implication of this study is that of the organization’s mission. The mission statement for the organizat ion in this study is, “Managing fish and wildlife resources for their long-term well-bei ng and the benefit of the people.” Thus, four items were used to test the perception of stakeholders regard ing whether or not the organization is accomplishing this mission. The mission was broken into two parts, one addressing their perceptions of the missi on and, a second addressing respondents’ perceptions of how other peopl e feel about the mission. Re spondents were asked if the they feel the organization is managing Florid a’s fish and wildlife for the animals’ longterm well-being, and if they believe the organization is managing Florida’s fish and

PAGE 86

78 78 wildlife for the benefit of th e people. The means for these two items were 5.96 and 5.59, respectively. Furthermore, respondents were as ked if they perceive other people feel this way and the means for these two items we re 5.37 and 5.20, respectively. These results, although just slightly above the midpoint, id entify the importance of a mission to an organization’s stakeholders and their percep tion of whether an organization is following its own mission. The communicatio n implications in this regard are great as mission identification through message dissemination is an integral part of public relations practice. A mission is a message designed fo r a target audience and when they buy into the mission and believe the organization suppor ts the mission, they are more likely to support the organization (Wilson, 2001). Overall, communication is obvi ously the impetus for this entire study; however, the question of which t ype of media affects public image public trust or the four relationships factors – trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality was not properly addressed. A model of long-term effects of communication This study supports the model illustrated in Figure 1, with one exception being the measure of controlled and uncontrolled media The model projected that public image public trust and the relationship factors of trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality can all influence each other. The m odel also predicts that communication outputs can influence these six factors. Co mmunication output measurements will have to be explored through further research, as the results of this study did not accurately address this. However, there are implicati ons that the results of the questionnaire can influence the communication outputs from a public relations progr am if communication

PAGE 87

79 79 outputs do influence the six factors – public image public trust trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality Strong and significant resu lts will give a practitioner some insight into the fact that their program is have some positive effects; however, weak or insignificant results will hopefully guide practitioners into changing some of their outputs to reflect more messa ge dissemination regarding which ever items measured weak. Conclusively, this model demonstrates a more comprehensive map for measuring long-term effects of public relations program s than the previously defined relationship scales. This model brings long-term out come measurement beyond a linear design by adding new dimensions.

PAGE 88

80 80 Chapter Six CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, the significant re sults of this study regarding public trust and public image add a new dimension to the concept of measuring the long-term effects of public relations programs. The study addressed th e concern and challenge stated in the Introduction, which was for scholars to e xplore new measurement factors beyond the scope of those associated with interpersona l relationships. Perhap s this study has opened the door to a new, more appropriate tool for measuring public relations success; therefore, providing better support for what it is that public relations practitioners do. Implications for Public Relations The implications for public relations within this study are two-fold. First, from a practical standpoint, this rese arch has provided a new instru ment to help practitioners measure long-term outcomes of public relations programs. Th is instrument includes not only measurement tools for assessing the stre ngth of an organizati on-public relationship, but it also includes tools for measuring pe rceptions stakeholders have about an organization based upon universal public relations tools, su ch as communication. This tool provides practitioners with the capability of meas uring long-term outcomes based upon public image and public trust which are not solely dependent upon interpersonal organization-public relationships. Th is study would argue that including public image and public trust when measuring the contribution of public relations to organizational effectiveness is a much more realistic representation of public relations work.

PAGE 89

81 81 The second implication of this study is acad emic in nature. Scholars now have statistical support encouraging the exploration of new ways to measure the long-term effects of public relations programs beyond meas uring interpersonal re lationships. This study supports the notion that pub lic relations work takes pla ce in the public sphere and not solely in the interpersonal area. Furthermore, J.E. Grunig (1993) did not believe image was a viable factor to measure. He felt that image merely measured a symbolic relationship and leaves out the behavioral (organizationa l-public) relationship, which leaves public relations practitioners with little va lue, but to manage message dissemination rather than organization-public relationships. Howeve r, he does not identify the relationship between managing messages and managing relati onships. Is it not the role of public relations practitioners, despite their position within an organization’s chain of command, to manage communication? Thus, co mmunication management and message dissemination should be the most effective dimension to managing organization-public relationships. Th erefore, managing public image through communication management has a direct link to managing organization-public relationshi ps, which this study supports through the significant findings among public image and the relationship factors of trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality Study Limitations Perhaps the most obvious limitation to this study was that a response rate could not be calculated due to the posting of th e survey link to a talk forum on a popular magazine’s Web site. The original populat ion consisted of a convenience sample of

PAGE 90

82 82 5,799 stakeholders for the study organization. With the survey being posted in the Internet, the population became anyone who had access to the Internet. Another limitation was that this stud y did not accurately measure whether controlled or uncontrolled media affected the interpersonal rela tionships tested within the survey instrument. As Cheney and Ch ristensen (2001) stated, “Of course, mass communication research has long acknowledged th e importance of the two-step flow of information, suggesting the interactio n between mass-mediated messages and interpersonal relationships, but this interm edia relationship always has proven to be difficult to examine in practice” (2001, p. 176) This study further supports their notion. Future Research Although this study identified the pote ntial for adding new dimensions to measuring the long-term effects of public relations, it did not accurately measure controlled and uncontrolled media Thus, it is suggested that further studies apply the reliable items found in the study to measure public image and public trust ; however, new, more focused items must be identified to accurately address media effects. This study was considered the pretest for fu ture studies; therefor e, further testing of the scales for public image and public trust as well as the rela tionship variables of trust satisfaction commitment and control mutuality is recommended. Since people tend to perceive corporate, nonprofit, and gove rnment organizations differently, scales must be tailored to address each type of or ganization. As very little public relations scholarship or research focuses on govern ment organizations, adding to this body of knowledge can only benefit the fiel d as well as its practitioners.

PAGE 91

83 83 Finally, a test of Moffitt’s (2001) belief that individuals can conceptualize more than one image of an organization is needed. De signing a survey instrument to test stakeholders’ perceptions about two or three issues specific to an organization may help to determine the practicality of such a concep t, not to mention give insight into how to address each image if necessary.

PAGE 92

84 84 References Baker, G. F. (2001). Race and reputation: Re storing image beyond the crisis. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 513-520). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Benoit, W. L., & McHale, J. P. (1999). Kenne th Starr’s image repair discourse viewed in 20/20. Communication Quarterly, 47 (3), 265. Benoit, W. L., & Smythe, M. J. (2003). Rhetorical theory as message reception: A cognitive response approach to rhet orical theory a nd criticism. Communication Studies, 54 (1), 96-115. Bentele, G. (1994). Public trust: Normativ e and social foundations for public relations. In W. Armbrecht & U. J. Zabel (Eds.), Normative foundation for public relations. Opladen: Westdeutcher Verlag. (T ranslation from German by D. R. Holtzhausen). Brinson, S. L., & Benoit, W. L. (1996). Do w Corning’s image repair strategies in the breast implant crisis Communication Quarterly, 44 29-41. Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. ( 2000). Concept and theory of organization public relationships. In J. A. Ledingham and S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations (pp. 3-22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Brown, P. J., & Golembiewski, R. T. (1974) The line-staff concept revisited: An empirical study or organizational images. Academy of Management Journal, 17 (3), 406-417. Bruning, S. D. (2000). Examining the role th at personal, professional, and community relationships play in respondent relati onship recognition and intended behavior. Communication Quarterly, 24 (4), 437-448. Bruning. S. D. (2002). Relationshi p building as a retention st rategy: linking relationship attitudes and satisfaction evaluati ons to behavioral outcomes. Public Relations Review, 28 (1), 39-48. Bruning, S. D., & Galloway, T. (2002). Expa nding the organization-public relationship scale: Exploring the role that struct ural and personal commitment play in organization-public relationships. Public Relations Review, 29 (3), 309-319.

PAGE 93

85 85 Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics: Development of a multi-dimensional organization-public relationship scale. Public Relations Review, 25 (2), 157-170. Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000a). Pe rceptions of relationships and evaluations of satisfaction: An expl oration of interaction. Public Relations Review, 26 (1), 8595. Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000b). Organization and key public relationships: Testing the influence of the relationshi p dimensions in a business-to-business context. In J. A. Ledingha m and S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational A pproach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations (pp. 159-173). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Burns, J. P., & Bruner, M. S. (2000). Re visiting the theory of image restoration strategies. Communication Quarterly, 48 (1), 27-40. Center, A. H., & Jackson, P. (1995). Public relations practices: Managerial case studies & problems (5th ed). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Chanley, V. A., Rudolph, T. J., & Rahn, W. M. (2000). The origins and consequences of public trust in government: A time series analysis. Public Opinion Quarterly, 64 (3), 239-256. Cheney G., & Christensen, L. T. (2001). Public relations as conteste d terrain: A critical response. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 167-188). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cozier, Z. R., & Witmer, D. F. (2001). The development of a structuration analysis of new publics in an electronic enviro nment. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 615-623). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cutlip, L. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (1985). Effective public relations (7th ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Day, K.D., Dong, Q, & Robins, C. (2001). P ublic relations ethics: An overview and discussion of issues for the 21st century. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 403-409). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. DeSanto, B. J., & Garner, R. B. (2001). Strength in diversity: The place of public relations in higher education inst itutions. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 543-549). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

PAGE 94

86 86 Dukerich, J. M., Golden, B. R., & Shortell, S. M. (2002). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: The impact of organizational identification, identi ty, and image on the cooperative behaviors of physicians. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47 (3), 507-533. Dutton, J. E., & Dukerich, J. M. (1991). Keeping an eye on the mirror: Image and identity in organizational adaptation. Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3), 517-554. Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational images and member identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39 (2), 239-258. Emrich, C. G., Brower, H. H., Feldman, J. M., & Garland, H. (2001). Images in words: Presidential rhetoric, charisma, and greatness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46 (3), 527-557. Felton, J. (2003). Guidelines for measuri ng the effectiveness of pr programs and activities (forward). The Institute for Public Relations [Online]. Available: http://www.instituteforpr.com/measurem ent_and_evaluation.phtml?article_id=20 03_guide_pr_effectiveness [2003, December 12]. Finocchiaro, C. J. (2003). An institutional vi ew of congressional elections: The impact of congressional image on seat change in the House. Political Research Quarterly, 56 (1), 59-65. Florida Fish and Wildlife Cons ervation Commission. (2003). About the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission [Online]. Available: http://myfwc.com/aboutus/aboutfwc.html [2003, November 8]. Florida Sportsman Magazine. (2004). Fishing Forums [Online]. Available: http://www.floridasportsman.com/ [2004, February 12]. Gioia, D. A., Schultz, M., & Corley, K. ( 2000). Organizational id entity, image, and adaptive instability. Academy of Management Review, 25 (1), 63-86. Gioia, D. A., & Thomas, J. (1996). Identity, image, and issue interpretation: Sensemaking during strategic change in academia. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41 (3), 370-403. Gotsi, M., & Wilson, A. M. (2001). Corpor ate reputation: Seeking a definition. Corporate Communication: An International Journal, 6 (1), 24-30. Grunig, J. E. (1993). Image and substance: Fr om symbolic to behavioral relationships, Public Relations Review, 19 (2), 121-139.

PAGE 95

87 87 Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, presen t, and future. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 11-30). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Grunig, J. E. (2002). Qualitative methods for assessing relationships between organizations and publics. The Institute for Public Relations [Online]. Available: http://www.instituteforpr.com/relations hips.phtml?article_i d=2002_relationships_ org_public [2002, October 12]. Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of comm unication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H. (2000). From organizational effectiv eness to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public re lations strategies, and relationship outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham and S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations (pp. 23-53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (1997). Relations between organizational culture, identity and image. European Journal of Marketing, 31 (5/6), 356-365. Hatch, M. J., & Schultz, M. (2002). Th e dynamics of organizational identity. Human Relations, 55 (8), 989-1018. Heath, R. L. (2001). Shifting foundations: Public relations as relations hip building. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 1-9). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Hon, L., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. The Institute for Public Relations [Online]. Available: http://www.instituteforpr.com/relatio nships.phtml?article_id=1999_guide_measur e_relationships [2002, September 15]. Huang, Y. (1997). Public relations strategies, re lational outcomes, and conflict management strategies (Unpublished doctoral diss ertation, University of Maryland, College Park, MD). Huang, Y. (2001a). OPRA: A cross-cultural, multiple-item scale for measuring organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13 (1), 61-90. Huang, Y. (2001b). Values of public rela tions: Effects of or ganization-public relationships mediati ng conflict resolution. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13 (4), 265-301.

PAGE 96

88 88 Hunt, T., & Grunig, J. E. (1994). Public relations techniques Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace. Hyland, K. (1998). Exploring corporate rhetor ic: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. The Journal of Business Communication, 35 (2), 224-246. Kazoleas, D., Kim, Y., & Moffitt, M. A. (2001). Institutional image: a case study. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 6 (4), 205-216. Kelly, K. S. (2001). Stewardship: The fifth step in the public relations process. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 279-289). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Re lationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relations review, 24 (1), 55-65. Ledingham, J.A., & Bruning, S. D. (2001). Managing community relationships to maximize mutual benefit: Doing well by doing good. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 527-534). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Ledingham, J. A. (2001). Government-community relationships: Extend ing the relational theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 27 (3), 285-295. Ledingham, J. A. (2003). Explicating relati onship management as a general theory of public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15 (2), 181-198. Lindenmann, W. K. (1997a). Guidelines a nd standards for measur ing and evaluating pr effectiveness. The Institute for Public Relations [Online]. Available: http://www.instituteforpr.com/measurem ent_and_evaluation.phtml?article_id=19 97_guide_pr_effectiveness [2002, October 12]. Lindenmann, W. K. (1997b). Setting minimu m standards for measuring public relations effectiveness. Public Relations Review, 23 (4), 391-408. Lindenmann, W. K., (1998). Measuring relations hips is key to successful public relations. Public Relations Quarterly, 43 (4), 18-24. Matera, F. R., & Artigue, R. J. (1999). Public relations campaigns and techniques: Building bridges into the 21st century. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Melewar, T. C., & Jenkins, E. (2002). Defi ning the corporate identity construct. Corporate Reputation Review, 5 (1), 76-90.

PAGE 97

89 89 Michaelson, D., Weiner, M., & Rambeau, D. (2003). Measurement: Add muscle to your program before budget time hits. Public Relations News, 59 (36). Mitsztal, B. A. (2001). Trust and coope ration: The democratic public sphere. Journal of Sociology, 37 (4), 371-388. Moffitt, M. A. (2001). Using the collapse model of corporate image for campaign message design. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp.347356). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Nguyen, N., & LeBlanc, G. (2001). Image and reputation of higher education institutions in students’ retention decisions. The International Journal of Education Management, 15 (6/7), 303-311. Olin, W. (1989). Corporate identity. London: Thames & Hudson. Paramewaran, R., & Glowacka, A. E. (1995) University image: an information processing perspective. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 6 (2), 41-56. Richmond, S. M., Byron, L. B., & Beach, L. R. (1998). Image theory’s compatibility test and evaluations of the status quo. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process, 73 (1), 39-53. Ristino, R. J. (2003). Senior management role of public relations in large organizations. Ristino/Peters Strategic Communications, Inc. [Online]. Available: http://www.ristinopeters.com/power _topics/commentary_SrMgmtRole.htm [2003, October 11]. Sargeant, A., & Lee, S. (2001). Improving public trust in the voluntary sector: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7 (1), 68-83. Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (2001). Public relations and crisis communication: Organizing chaos. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp.155-165). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Shenkar, O., & Yuchtman-Yaar, E. (1997). Reputation, image, prestige, and goodwill: An interdisciplinary approach to organizational standing. Human Relations, 50 (11), 1361-1381. Stacks, D. W. (2002). Primer of public relations research New York, NY: The Guildford Press.

PAGE 98

90 90 The Institute for Public Relations. (2003). Measurement & Evaluation [Online]. Available: http://www.instituteforpr.com/measurem ent_and_evaluation.phtml?article_id=19 97_guide_pr_effectiveness [2003, September 23]. The Measurement Standard. (2003). Summit on Measurement and Accountability for Professional Communicators [Online]. Available: http://www.measuresofsuccess.com/summit.asp [2003, October 11]. The Sixth International, Interd isciplinary Public Relations Re search Conference. (2003). Proceedings Available: http://www.instituteforpr. com/pdf/PROCEEDINGS%202003.pdf [2003, October 11]. Thomas, C. W. (1998). Maintaining and rest oring public trust in government agencies and their employees. Administration & Society, 30 (2), 166-194. Van Ruler, B., & de Lange, R. (2002). Barriers to communication management in the executive suite. Public Relations Review, 29 (2), 145-158. Wilcox, D. L., Cameron, G. T., Ault, P. H., & Agee, W. K. (2003). Public relations strategies and tactics (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. Wilson, L. J. (1994). Excellent companie s and coalition-building among the Fortune 500: A value and relationship-based theory. Public Relations Review, 20 333343. Wilson, L. J. (2001). Extending strategic planni ng to communication tactics. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp.215-222). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

PAGE 99

91 91 Appendices

PAGE 100

92 92 Appendix A: Initial email of su rvey to external stakeholders Date Emailed: Thursday, January 22, 2004 (12:00pm) Subject line of email: Survey about FWC Dear Saltwater Angler, We are asking for your help with a surv ey about the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC). The purpose of this survey is to identify factors that influence stakeholders’ perceptions of image and trust of an organization. The following link will bring you directly to the survey that is being administered by a public relations graduate student at the Universi ty of South Florida. The survey should take no more than 10-minutes and your answers are completely an onymous and confidential. Please do not forward this survey link to other anglers. This survey must be completed by Thursday, February 2, 2004. Thank you for your time and consideration. Survey link: http://myfwc.com/Survey2.html Please do not forward this survey link to other anglers.

PAGE 101

93 93 Appendix B: Follow-up email of reminding stakeholders to complete the survey Date Emailed: Monday, February 2, 2004 (12:00pm) Subject line of email: Survey about FWC Dear Saltwater Angler, On January 22, 2004, saltwater angl ers were asked to complete a survey about the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Th is is just a reminder email asking you to complete the survey if you have not already done so. The following link will bring you directly to the survey that is being administered by a public relations graduate student at the University of South Florida. The survey should take no more than 10-minutes and your answers are completely anonymous and confidential. This survey must be completed by Thursday, February 5, 2004. Pl ease do not forward this survey link to other anglers. Many thanks to those of you who ha ve already completed the survey. Thank you for your time and consideration. Survey link: http://myfwc.com/Survey2.html Please do not forward this survey link to other anglers.

PAGE 102

94 94 Appendix C: Survey instrument

PAGE 103

95 95 Appendix C (Continued)

PAGE 104

96 96 Appendix D: Primary FWC logo

PAGE 105

97 97 Appendix E: Secondary FWC logo

PAGE 106

98 98 Appendix F: Number of res pondents by county of residence County Respondents (n) Percent (%) Count y Respondents (n) Percent (%) Alachua 33 2.8 Lee 45 3.8 Baker 2 .2 Leon 42 3.5 Bay 22 1.8 Levy 3 .3 Bradford 5 .4 Liberty 1 .1 Brevard 77 6.5 Manatee 28 2.3 Broward 43 3.6 Marion 11 .9 Charlotte 40 3.4 Martin 15 1.3 Citrus 16 1.3 Miami – Dade 55 4.6 Clay 18 1.5 Monroe 24 2.0 Collier 17 1.4 Nassau 12 1.0 Columbia 6 .5 Okaloosa 21 1.8 Dixie 2 .17 Okeechobee 2 .2 Duval 52 4.4 Orange 43 3.6 Escambia 27 2.3 Osceola 8 .7 Flagler 7 .6 Palm Beach 29 2.4 Franklin 6 .5 Pasco 29 2.4 Gadsden 2 .2 Pinellas 79 6.6 Gilchrist 2 .2 Polk 34 2.8 Glades 1 .1 Putnam 4 .3 Gulf 3 .3 Santa Rosa 29 2.4 Hamilton 2 .2 Sarasota 33 2.8 Hendry 1 .1 Seminole 31 2.6 Hernando 13 1.1 St. Johns 21 1.8 Highlands 5 .4 St. Lucie 12 1.0 Hillsborough 62 5.2 Sumter 8 .7 Holmes 1 .1 Taylor 2 .2 Indian River 7 .6 Union 1 .1 Jackson 2 .2 Volusia 33 2.8 Jefferson 3 .3 Wakulla 6 .5 Lafayette 3 .3 Walton 3 .3 Lake 6 .5 Washington 1 .1 No response 42 3.5 Total 1,193 100%

PAGE 107

99 99 Appendix G: Counties by organizational region


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam Ka
controlfield tag 001 001469362
003 fts
006 m||||e|||d||||||||
007 cr mnu|||uuuuu
008 040524s2004 flua sbm s000|0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a E14-SFE0000264
035
(OCoLC)55537872
9
AJR1116
b SE
SFE0000264
040
FHM
c FHM
090
P90
1 100
Amendola, Kimberly B.
0 245
Identification and measurement of two factors affecting the long-term outcomes of public relations programs, public image and public trust
h [electronic resource] /
by Kimberly B. Amendola.
260
[Tampa, Fla.] :
University of South Florida,
2004.
502
Thesis (M.A.)--University of South Florida, 2004.
504
Includes bibliographical references.
516
Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.
538
System requirements: World Wide Web browser and PDF reader.
Mode of access: World Wide Web.
500
Title from PDF of title page.
Document formatted into pages; contains 107 pages.
520
ABSTRACT: This study explores the most current theories surrounding organization-public relationship measurement, which is one approach used to verify the effectiveness of public relations programs. The study attempted to define and test two new factors that may affect organization-public relationships, which are identified as public image and public trust. Existing factors used to test such relationships, such as trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality, focus on testing the perceptions stakeholders have about an organization based upon their interpersonal relationship with that organization. However, in organizations where the dominant coalition still does not view public relations as a management function, use of the existing scales to measure the long-term effectiveness of public relations programs can be dangerous and inaccurate, especially when public relations practitioners are not responsible for creating, maintaining, or managing those organization-public relationships. A 65-item questionnaire was administered via email to a convenience sample of 5,799 stakeholders. A total of 1,193 completed questionnaires were received; however, a response rate could not be reported because the questionnaire was posted to a popular Internet site. The survey instrument tested new items for public image and public trust, as well as the existing relationship items of trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality defined by Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999). Factor analysis defined two new indices for public image and public trust and Cronbach's alpha further supported the reliability of these measures. Also, Cronbach's alphas tested reliable for trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality. However, when all items for public image, public trust, trust, satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality were subject to factor analysis, all but four items weighted into one factor. This suggests the need to further explore new measurement tools for assessing the long-term effectiveness of public relations programs beyond the organization-public relationship.
590
Adviser: Holtzhausen, Derina R.
653
external stakeholder.
public relations measurement.
communication.
organization-public relationship.
email survey.
690
Dissertations, Academic
z USF
x Mass Communications
Masters.
773
t USF Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?e14.264