Content uploaded by Trent Seltzer
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Trent Seltzer on Feb 21, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
Available via license: CC BY-NC
Content may be subject to copyright.
Public Relations Journal Vol. 3, No. 2, Spring 2009
© 2009 Public Relations Society of America
TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY: USING COORIENTATION TO MEASURE DIRECT
AND META-PERSPECTIVES OF BOTH PARTIES IN ORGANIZATION-PUBLIC
RELATIONSHIPS
Trent Seltzer and Michael Mitrook
This study extends the study of organization-public relationships through the
development of a new methodology for measuring organization-public relationships.
The Hon-Grunig (1999) relationship scale was applied in a coorientational framework to
assess agreement between the direct perspectives of both an organization and a
stakeholder public. This represents a departure from existing organization-public
relationship measurement. Additionally, the meta-perspectives of each party were also
included to assess the degree of accuracy and congruency (perceived agreement)
between the perspectives of the two parties in the relationship. The effect of time in the
relationship on the coorientational relationship variables was also examined.
Introduction
For more than twenty years, the field of public relations research has been
experiencing a paradigm shift toward what has been dubbed the relational perspective
(Ledingham, 2003). The impetus for this shift lies in Ferguson’s (1984) suggestion that
public relations researchers needed a dominant paradigm that they could call their own;
this could be accomplished in part by focusing on a new unit of analysis, specifically, the
relationship that exists between an organization and its stakeholders – the organization-
public relationship (OPR). To this end, public relations researchers have sought to
extend their understanding of organization-public relationships through the development
of measurement scales (e.g., Hon & Grunig, 1999; Bruning and Ledingham, 1999) as
well as theoretical models outlining OPR antecedents and outcomes (e.g. Grunig &
Huang, 2000; Broom, Casey, and Ritchey, 1997). However, there is still a need to
continue to refine the methods that are being used to measure these relationships since
most research focusing on organization-public relationships typically only include
measures of the public’s perception of the relationship while leaving out the
organization’s perspective (e.g., Hon & Grunig, 1999; Ki & Hon, 2007; Kim, 2007;
Ledingham, 2001; Ledingham & Bruning, 2000; Ledingham, Bruning, & Wilson, 1999;
Yang, 2007).
Trent Seltzer, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Public Relations in the College of Mass
Communication at Texas Tech University, trent.seltzer@ttu.edu.
Michael Mitrook, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor in the Department of Public Relations in
the College of Journalism and Communications at University of Florida,
mmitrook@jou.ufl.edu.
Seltzer & Mitrook- Public Relations Journal- Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009
2
This study details the development and application of a relationship-centered
method for measuring organization-public relationships by using established
relationship measures within a coorientational framework. Building on previous
research, this study outlines a method that includes the direct perspectives and meta-
perspectives of both the public and the organization to assess the organization-public
relationship by combining the coorientational approach advocated by Broom (1977) and
Broom and Dozier (1990) with the relationship measures proposed by Hon and Grunig
(1999). Applying these relationship measures within the coorientational framework will
indicate the degree of agreement, accuracy, and congruency between organizations
and their publics in regard to perceptions of the relationship. This approach moves
beyond existing methods that consider only the public’s direct perspective of the
relationship. The effect of time in the relationship on coorientational perceptions is also
considered.
Literature Review
The Relational Perspective
The development of the relationship perspective in public relations research is
grounded in efforts to distinguish the study of public relations from other
communications fields. Ferguson (1984) laid the groundwork for the relationship
perspective by stressing a need for public relations researchers to focus on
relationships themselves. Making relationships a primary unit of analysis for studying
public relations in turn necessitated the development of methodologies to measure
those relationships.
This relationship-focused perspective fits naturally with the development of the
two-way symmetrical communication model of public relations. From the two-way
symmetrical viewpoint, the purpose of public relations is to develop and manage
relationships, not control public opinion through persuasion (Ehling, 1992). This model
incorporates a feedback loop to facilitate understanding between an organization and a
public to develop mutually beneficial relationships (Grunig & Grunig, 1992). Two-way
symmetrical communication has been identified as one of the ways organizations can
practice “excellent” public relations (Dozier, Grunig, & Grunig, 1995; Grunig, Grunig, &
Dozier, 2002) that increases organizational effectiveness by establishing and
maintaining long-term relationships with strategic publics.
Ferguson’s (1984) call to focus on relationships as a unit of analysis coupled with
Dozier, Grunig, and Grunig’s (1995) acknowledgement of the importance of two-way
communication in managing OPRs provides the groundwork for the relational
perspective. Ledingham (2003) summarized this perspective by suggesting a theory of
relationship management that states “effectively managing organization-public
relationships around common interests and shared goals, over time, results in mutual
understanding and benefit for interacting organizations and publics” (p. 190). To identify
a common definition of the term relationship in the literature Broom, Casey, and Ritchey
(1997), observed that:
Two Sides to Every Story - Public Relations Journ al- Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009
3
The formation of relationships occurs when parties have perceptions and
expectations of each other, when one or both parties need resources from the
other, when one or both parties perceive mutual threats from an uncertain
environment, and when there is either a legal or voluntary necessity to
associate…Relationships are the dynamic results of the exchanges and reciprocity
that manifest themselves as the relationships develop and evolve, but they can be
described at a given point in time (p. 95).
Broom, Casey, and Ritchey (1997) proposed a three-stage model of OPRs
consisting of antecedents, relationship state, and consequences. Antecedents include
perceptions, motives, needs, and behaviors of parties within the relationship.
Consequences include the outputs of relationships that could affect the organization or
its environment, such as behavior (Ledingham, Bruning, and Wilson, 1999), loyalty
(Ledingham and Bruning, 1998), satisfaction (Ledingham, 2001; Ledingham and
Bruning, 1998), and attitudes and behavioral intentions (Ki & Hon, 2007). Grunig &
Huang (2000) also proposed a three-stage model of OPRs that included situational
antecedents, maintenance strategies, and relationship outcomes. Situational
antecedents describe the behavioral and situational factors that link publics and
organizations. Maintenance strategies include the communication efforts used by the
organization to nurture its relationship with the public. Relationship outcomes include
goal attainment and perceptions of relationship state.
Defining and Measuring Relationships
Since Ferguson (1984) proposed that relationships should be the primary unit of
analysis in public relations, researchers have sought to explicate the relationship
concept through the identification of various dimensions of relationships and developing
methods to measure them. To date, these efforts have developed in two directions.
The first group of studies utilizes measures developed around the types of
relationships that may exist between an organization and a public. Ledingham, Bruning,
Thomlison, and Lesko (1997) identified 17 dimensions. Among these dimensions were
openness, trust, involvement, investment, and commitment. These five dimensions
were later operationalized by Ledingham and Bruning (1998); they proposed that OPRs
could be grouped into three categories, personal, community, and professional
relationships, which they used to develop a multi-dimensional scale to measure OPR
state (Bruning and Ledingham, 1999). Bruning and Galloway (2003) later expanded the
scale to include measures of personal and structural commitment.
The second group of studies conceptualizes relationship perception within the
Grunig and Huang (2000) model as an outcome of maintenance strategies. Huang
(1997) identified trust, control mutuality, commitment, and satisfaction as positive
relationship outcomes. Hon and Grunig (1999) later developed quantitative
measurement scales for these dimensions and found them to be strong measures.
These measures have since been found to be reliable in other studies (e.g., Hon &
Brunner, 2002; Huang, 2001; Jo, Hon, & Brunner, 2004; Ki & Hon, 2007).
Seltzer & Mitrook- Public Relations Journal- Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009
4
Control mutuality is the extent to which the parties in the relationship agree as to
who is authorized to exert power and control in the relationship. Trust consists of
several other concepts including integrity (the perception that parties are fair),
dependability (the perception that parties will follow through on their promises), and
competence (the perception that parties have the resources necessary to do what they
claim they will do). Satisfaction is the perception that the benefits of being in the
relationship exceed the costs. Commitment includes both continuance commitment (the
feeling that it is worth taking action to maintain the relationship) and affective
commitment (the emotional energy spent maintaining the relationship) (Hon & Grunig,
1999).
While these dimensions have been applied in a variety of contexts (e.g., Cameron
& McCollum, 1993; Huang, 2001; Ki & Hon, 2007), they are typically limited to
measurement of the public’s perspective of the OPR and ignore the other party in the
relationship – the organization. Despite many researchers advocating its inclusion
(Broom & Dozier, 1990; Hon & Grunig, 1999; Ledingham, 2001, 2003; Ledingham &
Bruning, 1998; Seltzer, 2006), the organization’s perspective remains largely absent
from OPR research.
Coorientation
Among the dimensions that Ferguson (1984) suggested for quantifying OPRs, she
listed mutuality of understanding, agreement, and consensus, noting that the
“coorientational measurement model should prove quite useful in conceptualizing
relationship variables for this type of paradigm focus” (p. 17). The use of a
coorientational approach has been proposed repeatedly in the public relations literature;
however, coorientation was originally suggested for use in assessing how two groups
perceive an issue and not how they view the relationship itself (Broom, 1977; Broom &
Dozier, 1990; Grunig & Stamm, 1973; McLeod & Chaffee, 1973).
Measuring relationships between two or more parties has been attempted in the
interpersonal and mass communications fields. Laing, Phillipson, and Lee (1966)
developed an Interpersonal Perception Method for assessing the perceptions of
husband-wife dyads. Laing’s (1969) Relational Perception Theory proposes that
individuals within a relationship continuously influence one another through their
interactions and that those interactions draw on three different perspectives. The first is
the direct perspective, or what an individual in the relationship thinks. The second
perspective is the meta-perspective, or what the individual thinks the other individual in
the relationship thinks. The third perspective is the meta-meta-perspective or how a
person thinks their direct perspective is perceived by another (i.e., “what I think you
think I think”). Laing proposed that the greater the degree of accuracy between these
various perspectives of the parties in the relationship, the better those individuals will
understand each other and feel they are being understood, which in turn would lead to
healthier relationships.
Previous work attempted to extend this interpersonal approach to communication
between collectives (McLeod & Chaffee, 1973; Grunig & Stamm, 1973). Grunig and
Two Sides to Every Story - Public Relations Journ al- Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009
5
Stamm (1973) advocated a coorientation paradigm for communication between an
organization and another social collective, observing that “if a researcher uses a
coorientation paradigm…he can focus his attention on the relationship of sender to
receiver in the communication system” (p. 567).
These studies suggest that the relationship is a construct separate from measures
of attitudes toward issues, people, and other objects external to the relationship. This
important distinction suggests that an organization and a public can hold similar
attitudes about an issue of common concern, and yet the relationship between them can
still be considered a “poor” relationship. The model also stresses it is not enough to
consider what one party in the relationship thinks; both parties have a say in defining
the true nature of the relationship through shared meaning. Using a coorientational
approach to measure organization-public relationships directly addresses this problem
of shared perception.
A coorientational approach to measuring the OPR includes four points of analysis:
(1) the organization’s direct perspective of the relationship, (2) the public’s direct
perspective of the relationship, (3) the organization’s meta-perspective of the
relationship, and (4) the public’s meta-perspective of the relationship. The interaction
between direct and meta-perspectives creates three measures of coorientation.
Agreement indicates the degree to which the organization’s view matches the public’s
view of the OPR. Accuracy indicates the degree to which the organization correctly
estimates the public’s viewpoint, and vice versa. Congruency (perceived agreement) is
the degree to which the organization’s view matches its perception of the public’s
viewpoint, and vice versa. The coorientational model presented in Figure 1 helps to
clarify the linkages among these concepts.
Seltzer & Mitrook- Public Relations Journal- Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009
6
Figure 1. The coorientational model of organization-public relationships adapted from
Broom (1977) and Broom & Dozier (1990).
The coorientational model has been used in other fields such as interpersonal
communication (e.g., O’Keefe, 1973; Purnine & Carey, 1999), employee
communications (e.g. Jo & Shim, 2005), political science (e.g., Hesse, 1976), journalism
(e.g., Jones, 1993) and environmental policy (e.g., Connelly & Knuth, 2002), but is
usually limited to assessments of one side’s perceptions of the relationship or
evaluations of an issue common to both parties. The model has been applied to some
degree in a public relations context, but typically ignores the organizational perspective,
focuses on issue or attitude assessment, (e.g., Bowes & Stamm, 1975; Broom, 1977;
Broom & Dozier, 1990; Cameron & McCollum, 1993; Grunig, 1972; Stegall & Sanders,
1986, Stamm & Bowes, 1972), or omitted the meta-perspectives (e.g., Hon & Brunner,
2002). The coorientational approach has yet to be fully utilized to measure an OPR.
Coorientational relationship measures can provide a snapshot of the whole
organization-public relationship in the form of shared perceptions and gaps in
perception between the organization’s and public’s direct and meta-perspectives,
thereby facilitating a more thorough diagnosis of the relationship and suggesting
possible prescriptive actions to improve the relationship if need be. By making
comparisons between the four perspectives, it will be possible to gauge the state of the
three coorientational variables: accuracy, agreement, and congruency (Broom & Dozier,
1990) Based on these comparisons, one could determine the relationship state that
exists between the organization and the public, including true consensus (accurate
perception of agreement), dissensus (accurate perception of disagreement), false
consensus (inaccurate perception of agreement), or false conflict (inaccurate perception
of disagreement) (Broom, 1977; Broom & Dozier, 1990).
Two Sides to Every Story - Public Relations Journ al- Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009
7
Being able to assess accuracy, agreement, and congruency, as well as the
resulting relationship states of dissensus, consensus, false conflict, and false
consensus, could be especially valuable; possibly even more valuable than outcome
measures of attitude or relational perception. This is particularly true for relationships
that are in a state of false consensus or false conflict in that it may be easier to increase
perceptual accuracy between the parties in the relationship by correcting these
misperceptions than it is to achieve more traditional public relations objectives, such as
attitude change (Broom, 1977).
Based on the literature on the relational perspective, relationship measurement,
and coorientation, the following research questions are proposed for investigation:
RQ1: Can the coorientational framework be used in conjunction with existing
organization-public relationship measures to measure an organization-public
relationship?
RQ2: Can the resulting coorientational measures of accuracy, agreement, and
congruency be used to evaluate the state of the organization-public relationship?
Time as a Relationship Antecedent
Organization-public relationships do not form in a vacuum; antecedents and
relationship maintenance efforts can act to influence relationship states and outcomes
(Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 2000; Grunig & Huang, 2000; Hon & Grunig, 1999). Time in
the relationship has been identified as an antecedent to formation of perceptions of the
relationship (Ledingham & Bruning, 2000; Ledingham, Bruning, & Wilson, 1999).
Therefore, measurement of the direct and meta-perspectives of the parties in the OPR
should consider the effect of time in the relationship.
Hon and Grunig (1999) acknowledged that one of the benefits of using
relationship measurement to evaluate public relations effectiveness is that these
measures provide an indication of public relations programming effectiveness over the
long term and are a better indicator than short-term outputs and outcomes that measure
the impact of a specific, short-term program. Ledingham, Bruning, and Wilson (1999)
found that time in a relationship influenced perceptions of the dimensions of an OPR,
concluding that building the long-term relationships that are desired by public relations
practitioners demands a long-term commitment.
While Ledingham, Bruning, and Wilson (1999) looked at the effects of time on the
direct perspectives of a relationship, this study looks at the impact of time on the
coorientational variables of agreement, accuracy, and congruency. Since longer time in
the relationship provides more opportunities to interact with the other party in the
relationship, more time in the relationship should lead to a better understanding of the
other party’s perspective. Therefore:
Seltzer & Mitrook- Public Relations Journal- Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009
8
RQ3: What effect will longer time in the organization-public relationship have on
the degree of agreement, accuracy, and congruency among the direct and meta-
perspectives of the parties in the organization-public relationship?
Methodology
To measure an OPR using a coorientational approach, an online survey of a
university police department and one of its publics was conducted during the spring of
2007 at a large southeastern university. The organization has approximately 130
employees and serves a student body that includes approximately 8,500 students living
in on-campus housing. While the use of student samples is typically frowned upon,
within the context of organization-public relationship research analyzing the relationship
between an organization and a key public, the use of a student sample is justified if
students comprise the organization’s primary stakeholder public (Ki & Hon, 2007).
The study utilized a Web-based survey instrument to measure perceptions of the
organization-public relationship. Couper (2000) points out that one of the greatest
drawbacks of using the Internet to survey the general population is under-coverage of
target populations. However, this is minimized if the target population is known to have
Internet access as in our study (Couper, 2000).
A recruitment e-mail was sent to all members of the university police department
(N=130) and all students living on campus (N=8,175). Multiple contacts were made over
a two- week period to improve the response rate (Cook, Heath, & Thompson, 2000;
Couper, Traugott, & Lamais, 2001; Groves et al., 2004; Porter & Whitcomb 2003).
Forty-four members of the organization completed the survey, a 33.8% response rate
for the organization sample. For the student sample, the final completion rate was 5.7%
with 468 respondents completing the entire survey.
Survey Instrument
A link in the recruitment e-mail directed respondents to a Web site featuring one of
two versions of the survey; students were directed to the public version of the survey,
while university police department members were directed to the organization version.
The basic structure of both surveys was similar: respondents were asked to provide (1)
their direct perspective of the relationship, (2) their meta-perspective of the relationship,
and (3) demographic information including how long the respondent had been involved
in the OPR.
Time. Members of the organization were asked to indicate how many years they
had worked in their current position, how many years they had worked for the
department in all, and how many years that they had worked at the university. Students
were asked to indicate how many years they had been a student at the university and
how many years they lived on campus.
Direct Perspective. Each respondent’s direct perspective of the four relationship
dimensions of trust, control mutuality, satisfaction, and commitment was measured
Two Sides to Every Story - Public Relations Journ al- Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009
9
using the 21-item Hon-Grunig (1999) relationship scale. Each item was slightly
reworded so that they were applicable to the specific organization-public relationship
under investigation. Respondents indicated their degree of agreement or disagreement
with each item on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (“strongly disagree”) to 7
(“strongly agree”). The survey software randomized the order of the items for each
respondent, thus controlling for question order effects.
Meta-Perspective. After responding to the items measuring direct perspective, the
next page of the survey asked respondents to estimate the other party’s view of the
relationship (i.e., the respondent’s meta-perspective). This was measured using the
same 21-item relationship measures as before. For the organization version of the
survey, the scale ranged from 1 (“a student would strongly disagree”) to 7 (“a student
would strongly agree”); for the student version of the survey, the scale ranged from 1 (“a
member of the university police department would strongly disagree”) to 7 (“a member
of the university police department would strongly agree”).
Data Analysis
After the reversed control mutuality item was recoded, Cronbach’s Alpha was
calculated for each relationship dimension to ensure the items representing that
dimension were reliable. The scale items representing each relationship measure were
then averaged to obtain the mean trust, satisfaction, control mutuality, and commitment
scores for each respondent’s direct perspective and meta-perspective. An overall
relationship measure was also calculated using all 21 items for each respondent’s direct
perspective and meta-perspective.
Difference scores (d-scores) were calculated for each respondent by subtracting
their direct perspective and meta-perspectives ratings from the average direct
perspective ratings for the other party. This procedure generated two sets of d-scores:
one set of d-scores that indicated accuracy between the respondent’s meta-perspective
and the other party’s direct perspective, and one set of d-scores that indicated
agreement between the respondent’s direct perspective and the other party’s direct
perspective. Congruency was calculated by finding the difference between each
respondent’s own direct and meta-perspectives. The absolute value of all d-scores was
then calculated so they were positive. Smaller d-score values indicate stronger levels of
agreement, accuracy, and congruency while larger d-score values indicate weaker
levels.
To address the research questions regarding the type of relationship states that
exist between the organization and the public, repeated measures multiple analysis of
variance (MANOVA) was used. Follow-up ANOVAs were also used to provide additional
information regarding the interaction of the various perspectives. To address the impact
of time on the coorientation measures, linear regression analysis was used.
Seltzer & Mitrook- Public Relations Journal- Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009
10
Results
Scale Reliability
Since the Hon-Grunig relationship scales have been repeatedly validated (several
times within a university relationship setting), scale reliability was assessed using
Cronbach’s Alpha. Using SPSS, scale reliability was assessed for each set of items
composing the various dimensions on the Hon-Grunig relationship scale, plus an
additional analysis that looked at the reliability of all 21-items as a whole to indicate total
relationship perception. The item total correlations were also examined to ensure they
were greater than .50, and the inter-item correlations were examined to ensure they
were greater than .30.
The Alpha for direct perspective of control mutuality was .858; removing the third
control mutuality item improved reliability to .910. Since the third control mutuality item
had inter-item and item-total correlations below the acceptable levels, it was dropped.
The Alphas for the direct perspective of trust, commitment, and satisfaction were .916,
.897, and .94 respectively. The Alpha for the overall direct perspective relationship
measure using all 21-items was .971 (.974 after removing the third control mutuality
item). The Alpha for the meta-perspective of control mutuality was .84; removing the
third control mutuality item improved this to .937. Again, since the inter-item and item-
total correlations were below the recommended levels, this item was removed. The
Alphas for the meta-perspective of trust, commitment, and satisfaction were .959, .907,
and .939 respectively. The Alpha for the meta-perspective relationship measure using
all 21-items was .974 (.979 after removing the third control mutuality item).
The remaining 20 items were used to create the summated scales for each direct
and meta-perspective relationship dimension, as well as overall direct and meta-
perspective relationship measures. Suspecting that multicollinearity among the
independent variables may become an issue, it was felt that having one overall
measure of the direct and meta-perspective of the relationship might prove useful.
Means were generated for each of the relationship measures along each of the four
perspectives. Table1 presents the means and standard deviations of the relationship
dimensions and the overall rating of the relationship for each perspective.
Two Sides to Every Story - Public Relations Journ al- Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009
11
Table 1. Comparison of organization and public direct and meta-perspectives.
Organization
direct
perspective
Organization
meta
perspective
Public direct
perspective
Public meta
perspective
Relationship
Dimension
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Control mutuality
5.37ae
.722
4.61c
1.16
3.72acd
1.32
4.80de
1.48
Trust
6.15abe
.595
5.23bc
1.04
4.43acd
1.29
5.28de
1.42
Commitment
5.35ae
.888
4.87c
1.09
3.91acd
1.37
4.70de
1.36
Satisfaction
5.27ae
.860
5.00c
.977
3.65acd
1.46
4.45de
1.48
Overall
relationship
5.57ae
.658
4.96c
.990
3.96acd
1.28
4.83de
1.36
Note: Values with the same superscripts indicate means that there are significantly
different on a given relationship measure (p < .05).
Sample Demographics
The average age of the students in the public sample was 20.53 years old (SD =
4.54). The average respondent had been a student at the university 1.82 years (SD =
1.26). In terms of gender, 45.1% were male and 54.9% female. For class standing,
35.9% indicated that they were freshman, 34.2% sophomores, 13.2% juniors, 7.3%
seniors, and 9.4% graduate students. These student sample demographics are
comparable to the demographic information regarding students living on campus and
may help mitigate concerns regarding the low response rate.
For the organization sample, the average age of the university police department
respondents was 38.5 years old (SD=9.23). In terms of gender, 72.7% were male and
27.3% were female. Respondents indicated that they had spent an average of 4.7 years
(SD=4.42) in their current position, 10.2 years (SD=6.35) with the UPD, and 10.8 years
(SD=6.30) at the university.
Results Related to the Research Questions
To investigate RQ1 regarding the use of the coorientational framework in
conjunction with existing organization-public relationship measures to measure an OPR,
and RQ2 regarding the coorientational measures of accuracy, agreement, and
congruency being used to evaluate the state of the OPR, a repeated measures
MANOVA was calculated with party membership (organization or public) as the
between-subjects factor and perspective (direct or meta-perspective) as the within-
subjects factor to see the effect on the respondent ratings of the relationship
dimensions. The main effects of party membership (F(4, 525)=9.49, p < .01), the main
effect of perspective (F(4, 525)=5.41, p < .01), and the interaction of party membership
and perspective (F(4, 525)=22.75, p < .01) were all significant.
The between-subjects main effect of party membership on control mutuality (F(1,
528)=13.73, p < .01), trust (F(1, 528)=20.20, p < .01), commitment (F(1, 528)=17.85, p
Seltzer & Mitrook- Public Relations Journal- Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009
12
< .01), and satisfaction (F(1, 528)=29.55, p < .01) were all significant. The organization
rated all four relationship dimensions higher than the public did.
The within-subjects main effects of perspective on control mutuality (F(1,
528)=2.39, p > .05), trust (F(1, 528)=.117, p > .05), and commitment (F(1, 528)=1.82, p
> .05) were not significant. There was a significant main effect of perspective on
satisfaction (F(1, 528)=5.70, p < .05). The direct perspective rating of satisfaction was
lower than the meta-perspective rating.
The within-subjects effects of the interaction of perspective and party on control
mutuality (F(1, 528)=68.79, p < .01), trust (F(1, 528)=77.75, p < .01), commitment (F(1,
528)=42.85, p < .01), and satisfaction (F(1, 528)=29.98, p < .01) were all significant.
The direct- and meta-perspectives of the organization and the direct and meta-
perspectives of the public differed significantly for the four relationship dimensions.
A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted with party membership
(organization, public) as the between-subjects factor and perspective as the within-
subjects factor (direct perspective, meta-perspective) to see their effect on respondents’
ratings of the overall relationship (i.e., using the overall relationship measure that
included all 20 items). Here, the main effect of party membership (F(1, 528)=22.69, p <
.01) and the interaction of perspective with party membership (F(1, 528)=62.29, p < .01)
were both significant. The main effect of perspective (F(1, 528)=1.51, p > .05) was not
significant. The public rated the overall relationship lower than the organization did.
Furthermore, direct perspectives and meta-perspectives of the relationship differed
among the parties.
To untangle the differences between groups that resulted from the within-
subjects factor of perspective interacting with the between-subject factor of party
membership, additional MANOVA and ANOVA tests needed to be conducted in such a
manner so that the interaction of perspectives and parties and the resulting effect on
ratings of the individual relationship dimensions and the overall relationship rating could
be clarified through post hoc testing of the individual group means. To facilitate such an
analysis, the data set had to be restructured so the direct perspectives and meta-
perspectives of each party in the relationship would be separated into four groups.
Whereas the preceding analysis treated the direct and meta-perspectives evaluation of
each dependent variable as repeated measures, the following analysis treats them as
independent measures. Using SPSS, the data set was restructured to create a new
independent variable representing the perspective by party interaction. The new
variable, perspective, could now be treated as a factor with four levels: public’s direct
perspective, public’s meta-perspective, organization’s direct perspective, and
organization’s meta-perspective.
A MANOVA was conducted to see the effects of the new perspective variable on
the four relationship dimensions of control, trust, commitment, and satisfaction. The
main effect of perspective (F(12,3837)=22.131, p < .01) was significant. Follow-up
univariate ANOVAs indicated that control mutuality (F(3, 1280)=73.99, p < .01), trust
Two Sides to Every Story - Public Relations Journ al- Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009
13
(F(3, 1280)=73.99, p < .01), commitment (F(3, 1280)=73.99, p < .01), and satisfaction
(F(3, 1280)=73.99, p < .01) differed significantly between the four perspectives. Post
hoc analysis using Scheffe’s test indicated that there were significant differences
between the public’s direct perspective, the public’s meta-perspective, and the
organization’s direct perspective in regard to control mutuality, trust, commitment, and
satisfaction. The organization’s meta-perspective was significantly different from the
public’s direct perspective for all four relationship dimensions, and was only significantly
different from the organization’s direct perspective regarding trust. Table 1 clarifies the
significant differences between the four perspectives.
A one-way ANOVA was conducted to compare the overall relationship rating
within the four different perspectives. A significant difference was found among the
perspectives (F(3,1280)=62.88, p < .01). Scheffe’s test was used for post hoc analysis
to identify differences between the individual group perspectives. The public’s direct
perspective (M=3.96, SD=1.28), the public’s meta-perspective (M=4.83, SD=1.36), and
the organization’s direct perspective (M=5.57, SD=.658) were all significantly different
from each other. The organization’s meta-perspective of the overall relationship
(M=4.96, SD=.990) was only significantly different from the public’s direct perspective of
the overall relationship. Figure 2 presents a model of the OPR that visualizes the
interplay between these different perspectives and indicates the pattern of significant
differences between each perspective’s ratings of the relationship measures.
Seltzer & Mitrook- Public Relations Journal- Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009
14
Figure 2. Coorientation model of main study organization-public relationship.
Note: Values with the same superscripts indicate means that there are significantly
different on a given relationship measure (p < .05). In the model, CM = control mutuality,
T = trust, C = commitment, S = satisfaction, and R = overall relationship.
To address RQ3 regarding the effect of time on the coorientational variables, a
series of linear regression equations were calculated using a dichotomously coded
dummy variable to control for party identification (UPD, student), time as the
independent variable (years in the relationship), and the following dependent variables:
direct perspective of the overall relationship, meta-perspective of the overall
relationship, agreement, accuracy, and congruency. None of the linear regression
equations investigating the impact of time on the perceptions of the relationship and the
coorientational measures were significant.
Two Sides to Every Story - Public Relations Journ al- Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009
15
Discussion
Implications for the OPR Measurement
The first research question asked if the coorientational framework could be used in
conjunction with existing measurement scales to assess an OPR. This was
accomplished by integrating the Hon-Grunig (1999) measures into the coorientational
approach advocated by Broom (1977), Broom & Dozier (1990), and others (Hon &
Grunig, 1999; Seltzer, 2006). Despite the relationship scales being used with both an
organization and a public to measure direct perspectives as well as being used to
assess meta-perspectives, they maintained good reliability as measures of how both
parties perceived the relationship. Even though the coorientation framework was
originally suggested to measure shared attitudes about an issue, it seems to provide a
good framework for examining how parties perceive their relationship as well. From a
methodological perspective, the scales were straightforward to administer and even
though inclusion of the ratings of the meta-perspective doubled the length of the survey
instrument, most respondents managed to complete the assessments of both direct
perspective and meta-perspective. The added complexity of requiring two samples may
be challenging in practical applications, but can be achieved if the organization is
supportive.
The use of the coorientational approach also facilitates measurement of the meta-
perspectives that are necessary to understand the true state of the relationship that
exists between an organization and a stakeholder public. In our study, measuring both
the direct perspective of the students and the direct perspective of the university police
department, as well as their meta-perspectives of each other, not only made it possible
to generate individual measures of agreement, accuracy, and congruency, but it also
made it possible to address the second research question regarding identification of the
OPR’s coorientational state.
Using coorientational measurement appears to be an improvement over the one-
way measures of the public’s direct perspective that are typically used because it
reveals what the shared perspective of the relationship is between the organization and
the public. In the present study, the OPR that exists between the students and the
university police is more accurately portrayed by using the coorientational approach
than by simply relying on the one-way approach that measures the public’s perspective.
In this case, the public’s direct perspective of the relationship was slightly negative with
the exception of trust, which the public rated slightly favorable. From the organization’s
direct perspective, the relationship is viewed somewhat positively, especially in regard
to trust. Based on the results, a true state of disagreement exists between the direct
perspective of the university police department and the direct perspective of students,
with the university police department viewing the relationship more positively than
students.
Where coorientational measurement truly reveals its utility in diagnosing the OPR
is in the next stage of analysis where the meta-perspectives of both parties are
examined. In this case, the meta-perspective of the students was significantly different
Seltzer & Mitrook- Public Relations Journal- Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009
16
from the students’ own direct perspective, with the students reporting the university
police department would rate the relationship better than students, which was indeed
the case. Therefore, there was a perceived disagreement between the students’ direct
perspective and the students’ meta-perspective. Coupled with the direct perspective
measures, it becomes clear that students are aware that the two groups disagree. The
university police perceive the relationship as being more positive than students – and
the students realize this. In fact, the disagreement is greater than students reported.
Looking at the accuracy dimension, the student meta-perspective is significantly
different from the organization’s direct perspective; students know that the university
police rate the relationship more positively than students; they just don’t understand
how much more positively the university police department rates the relationship. To put
it another way, there is a gap, and the students correctly see the gap, they just
underestimate the size of the gap. Taken altogether, from the students’ viewpoint, a
state of true disagreement exists between them and the police.
Another coorientation-based finding is the disconnect between the public’s view
and the organization’s view of the relationship. The meta-perspective of the university
police department is not significantly different from their own direct perspective of the
relationship. In other words, the university police department perceived agreement
between themselves and the students in how they all view the relationship. This is also
reflected in the significant difference between the organization’s meta-perspective and
the students’ direct perspective; the university police department overestimates how
favorably students will view the relationship. So, from the university police department
viewpoint, students and police both view the relationship favorably; however, there is
actually disagreement between them regarding the state of the relationship. From the
organization’s viewpoint, a state of false consensus exists.
The students rate the relationship more negatively than the organization, and the
students report that the UPD would rate the relationship more positively, but the UPD
does not realize this. The university police department rated the relationship with its on-
campus public as healthy and indicated that students would rate it similarly; meanwhile,
students are well aware of the difference of opinion. Therein lies the benefit of the
coorientational approach – the relationship is not defined by one party’s view, but rather
rests on the shared perceptions of both parties in the relationship.
The findings have several implications relevant to the ongoing efforts to develop
adequate measures of OPRs. First and foremost, our study serves as another example
of the reliability of the Hon-Grunig (1999) relationship measures. However, the present
study extends the application of the relationship scale by utilizing these measures to
assess not only the public’s direct perspective, but also by using them to measure the
organization’s direct perspective as well as the organization and public meta-
perspectives. As has been noted previously, measurement of the OPR by using the
coorientational framework to assess both the organization’s and the public’s direct and
meta-perspectives provides for a more comprehensive OPR construct. By considering
all four perspectives within the OPR, researchers attempting to use relationships as a
unit of analysis will be seeing more of the whole picture of the relationship, rather than
Two Sides to Every Story - Public Relations Journ al- Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009
17
the one-sided view that is provided by only measuring the direct perspective of the
public.
In this study, limiting measurement to the students that make up the organization’s
primary stakeholders would not adequately describe the true state of this organization-
public relationship. If strong relationships are built on mutual understanding and
agreement, then the use of the coorientational approach provides more valid
measurements of OPRs - valid measures that are necessary for the continued
development of the relational perspective.
Implications for Relationship Management Theory
This study contributes to public relations theory development primarily by including
the coorientational measures that should be used to measure the organization-public
relationship to further refine the OPR construct. The continued development of valid,
reliable, and descriptive relationship measures is crucial to the advancement of the
relational perspective and relationship management theory. If the relationship is going to
be the unit of analysis for public relations research and if the relational perspective is to
be proffered as a dominant paradigm for the discipline, then every effort needs to be
made to ensure that the measurement of that unit is adequate. Therefore, there is a
need to measure the whole relationship that results from the shared perspectives of all
the parties involved and not just use one side of that equation to represent the entire
construct. The relational perspective and relationship management theory should be
developed around a comprehensive unit of analysis, and using a coorientational
approach to measuring OPRs is a step in that direction.
Another finding that has implications for the relational perspective is that the length
of time that respondents had been in the OPR had little effect on their perceptions of the
relationship or the coorientational variables. There seems to be an assumption in the
relationship management literature that longer time in the relationship will lead to
favorable outcomes, such as a greater degree of understanding, agreement, and
congruency. However, the present findings indicate that time in the relationship did not
seem to have an appreciable effect on views of the OPR. In certain situations, more
time in the relationship may indeed lead to increasingly negative perceptions of the
relationship if it provides more opportunities to have a negative experience.
In the student-university police relationship, it may be that the longer a student is
at the university, the more opportunities there are to form negative perceptions of the
university police via direct experience, news coverage, word-of-mouth, etc. Members of
the UPD may also view the relationship in an increasingly negative light over time if they
become jaded with their job or toward students. Additionally, in a relationship such as
the one that might exist between students and university police where the organization
is unaware that the public has a negative perception of the relationship, if the public
sees that this is the case and that things do not change over time, this view may lead to
feelings of resentment by the public that it is not only being misunderstood by the
organization, but that the organization has continually ignored the situation.
Seltzer & Mitrook- Public Relations Journal- Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009
18
Implications for Public Relations Practice
One of the main implications of our study for practitioners is that it provides a
measurement tool to supplement existing measures of public relations effectiveness
such as measuring outputs (e.g., number of press releases distributed) and outcomes
(e.g., attitude change). While these measures are indicators of what a particular public
relations program produces and what those outputs achieve in the short term, the
coorientational relationship measures can help practitioners identify whether the
cumulative effect of program efforts are achieving long-term public relations goals (e.g.,
building mutually beneficial relationships) and organizational goals (e.g., creating a
favorable operating environment for the organization).
Broom (1977) proposed that the alignment and adjustment of perspectives by both
the public and the organization to foster agreement and understanding may be a more
appropriate goal for some public relations programs, particularly when a lack of
understanding exists between the organization and the public. Standard measures of
public relations effectiveness do not assess these types of interactions; however, the
coorientational approach does and can suggest strategies for improving the relationship
by using strategic communication to target both the public and the organization to
increase agreement and understanding.
Limitations & Future Research
While using an online survey did provide many advantages, such as affordability
and speed, it may have contributed to a low response rate. The response rate for the
student sample was fairly low; it may be that students use e-mail so much in the course
of conducting their academic and social relationships that they simply do not have the
time or patience to respond. Plus, the prevalence of spam and phishing may lead many
recipients to delete unsolicited e-mail.
An additional limitation in our study was that it examined only one specific
organization-public relationship. Since the university police department enjoys a large
measure of authority and power in comparison to students living on campus and that
the median age of the student respondents was below the legal drinking age, it is not
surprising that there was the possibility for a contentious relationship between these two
groups. However, it should not be assumed that a negative relationship is the only
possible relationship in this case. Many opportunities exist for campus police and
students to build positive relationships. For example, police can build positive
relationships by helping students in need or by working in collaborative efforts with
student groups, such as implementing a campus safety program. Still, other types of
relationships featuring different organizations and publics may not exhibit the same
patterns of perceptual interaction as seen here. Future studies should extend OPR
research by simultaneously considering multiple organization-public relationships.
Additional research can also focus on using coorientational measures of the OPR
to understand how perceptions of the relationship affect the outcomes of relationship
state. For example, Ki and Hon’s (2007) study investigating the influence of perceptions
Two Sides to Every Story - Public Relations Journ al- Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009
19
of the relationship measures on resulting attitudes and behavioral intentions could be
extended by including the coorientational measures as independent variables.
Another consideration for future research is to conduct more longitudinal studies
and to consider the ordering of relationship outcomes. A few studies have begun
investigating time’s impact on relationship perception (Ledingham & Bruning, 2000;
Ledingham, Bruning, & Wilson, 1999). This avenue of research needs to be continued
by including coorientation dimensions. Additionally, the order in which perceptions of the
relational dimensions form should be extended. While some studies have begun to
investigate the intra-relationship of these dimensions through assessments of public
direct perspectives (e.g., Jo, 2003; Ki & Hon, 2007), this line of inquiry needs to
incorporate the coorientational approach by examining both organization and public
direct and meta-perspectives.
Conclusion
Our study began with the proposition that the current conceptualization of
relationships and organization-public relationships found in the field of public relations
as well as the methods for measuring and evaluating these constructs needed
refinement. The lack of an adequate definition of organization-public relationships and
the limitations inherent in the methods currently used to measure those relationships
restricts relationship theory development. However, measurement of organization-public
relationships has continued to focus on assessments of the public’s direct perspective
only. Public relations and interpersonal communication theories suggest that the
perceptions of both parties in the organization-public relationship are critical to
understanding the nature of the relationship between them. Our study represents an
effort to advance theoretical and methodological development in this area of relationship
measurement.
Seltzer & Mitrook- Public Relations Journal- Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009
20
REFERENCES
Bowes, J. E., & Stamm, K. R. (1975). Evaluating communication with public agencies.
Public Relations Review, 1, 23-37.
Broom, G. M. (1977). Coorientational measurement of public issues. Public Relations
Review, 3, 110-119.
Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of
organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9, 83-
98.
Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (2000). Concept and theory of organization-
public relationships. In J. A. Ledingham & 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 Associates, Inc.
Broom, G. M., & Dozier, D. M. (1990). Using research in public relations: Applications
to program management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bruning, S. D., & Galloway, T. (2003). Expanding the organization-public relationship
scale: Exploring the role that structural and personal commitment play in
organization-public relationships. Public Relations Review, 29, 309-319.
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, 157-170.
Cameron, G. T., & McCollum, T. (1993). Competing corporate cultures: A multi-method,
cultural analysis of the role of internal communication. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 5, 217-250.
Connelly, N. A., & Knuth, B. A. (2002). Using the coorientation model to compare
community leaders’ and local residents’ views about Hudson River ecosystem
restoration. Society and Natural Resources, 15, 933-948.
Cook, C., Heath, F., & Thompson, R. (2000). A meta-analysis of response rates in web-
or Internet-based surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60,
821-836.
Couper, M. P. (2000). Web surveys: A review of issues and approaches. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 64, 464-494.
Couper, M. P., Traugott, M. W., Lamias, M. J. (2001). Web survey design and
administration. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 230-253.
THE WHOLE PICTURE 21
Dozier, D. M., Grunig, L. A., & Grunig, J. E. (1995). Manager’s guide to excellence in
public relations and communication management. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ehling, W. P. (1992). Estimating the value of public relations and communication to an
organization. In J. E. Grunig, D. M. Dozier, W. P. Ehling, L. A., Grunig, F. C.
Repper, & J. White (Eds.), Excellence in public relations and communication
management (pp. 617-638). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Ferguson, M. A. (1984, August). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational
relationships as a public relations paradigm. Paper presented to the Public
Relations Division, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass
Communication Annual Convention, Gainesville, FL.
Groves, R. M., Fowler, F. J., Couper, M. P., Lepkowski, J. M., Singer, E., &
Tourangeau, R. Survey Methodology. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Grunig, J. E. (1972). Communication in community decisions on the problems of the
poor. Journal of Communication, 22, 5-25.
Grunig, J. E., & Grunig, L. A. (1992). Models of public relations and communication. In
J. E. Grunig, D. M. Dozier, W. P. Ehling, L. A., Grunig, F. C. Repper, & J. White
(Eds.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 285-
325). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and
effective organizations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship
indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relationship strategies, and
relationship outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham & 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
Associates, Inc.
Grunig, J. E., & Stamm, K. R. (1973). Communication and coorientation of collectives.
American Behavioral Scientist, 16, 567-591.
Hesse, M. B. (1976). A coorientation study of Wisconsin state senators and their
constituencies. Journalism Quarterly, 53, 626-633, 660.
Hon, L. C., & Brunner, B. (2002). Measuring public relationships among students and
administrators at the University of Florida. Journal of Communication
Management, 6, 227-238.
Seltzer & Mitrook- Public Relations Journal- Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009
22
Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public
relations. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations.
Huang, Y. H. (1997). Public relations strategies, relational outcomes, and conflict
management strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Maryland, College Park.
Huang, Y. (2001). OPRA: A cross-cultural multiple-item scale for measuring
organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13, 61-
90.
Jo, S. (2003). Measurement of organization-public relationships: Validation of
measurement using a manufacturer-retailer relationship. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville.
Jo, S., Hon, L. C., & Brunner, B. R. (2004). Organization-public relationships:
Measurement validation in a university setting. Journal of Communication
Management, 9, 14-27.
Jo, S., & Shim, S. W. (2005). Paradigm shift of employee communication: The effect of
management communication on trusting relationships. Public Relations Review,
31, 277-280.
Jones, R. W. (1993). Coorientation of a news staff and its audience. Communication
Reports, 6, 41-46.
Ki, E., & Hon, L. C. (2007). Testing the linkages among the organization-public
relationship and attitude and behavioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 19, 1-23.
Kim, H. (2007). A multi-level study of antecedents and a mediator of employee-
organization relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19, 167-197.
Laing, R. D. (1969). Self and Others. London: Tavistock.
Laing, R. D., Phillipson, H., & Lee, A. R. (1966). Interpersonal perception: A theory and
a method of research. New York: Springer.
Ledingham, J. A. (2001). Government-community relationships: extending the relational
theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 27, 285-295.
Ledingham, J. A. (2003). Explicating relationship management as a general theory of
public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 15, 181-198.
THE WHOLE PICTURE 23
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public
relations: Dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relations
Review, 24, 55-65.
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000). A longitudinal study of organization-public
relationship dimensions: Defining the role of communication in practice of
relationship management. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public
relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and
practice of public relations (pp. 55-69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Ledingham, J. A., Bruning, S. D., Thomlison, T. D., & Lesko, C. (1997). The
transferability of interpersonal relationship dimensions into an organizational
setting. Academy of Managerial Communications Journal, 1, 23-43.
Ledingham, J. A., Bruning, S. D., & Wilson, L. J. (1999). Time as an indicator of the
perceptions and behaviors of members of a key public: Monitoring and predicting
organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 11, 167-
183.
McLeod, J. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1973). Interpersonal approaches to communication
research. American Behavioral Scientist, 16, 469-499.
O’Keefe, G. J. (1973). Coorientation variables in a family study. American Behavioral
Scientist, 16, 513-536.
Porter, S. R., & Whitcomb, M. E. (2003). The impact of contact type on web survey
response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 67, 579-588.
Purnine, D. M., & Carey, M. (1999). Dyadic coorientation: Reexamination of a method
for studying interpersonal communication. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28, 45-
62.
Seltzer, T. (2006). Measuring the Impact of Public Relations: Using a Coorientational
Approach to Analyze the Organization-Public Relationship. Published February
8, 2006 on the Institute for Public Relations Web site:
http://www.instituteforpr.org/index.php/ipr/research_single/measuring_pr_impact.
Stegall, S. K., & Sanders, K. P. (1986). Coorientation of PR practitioners and news
personnel in education news. Journalism Quarterly, 63, 341-352.
Yang, S. (2007). An integrated model for organization-public relational outcomes,
organizational reputation, and their antecedents. Journal of Public Relations
Research, 19, 91-121.
Seltzer & Mitrook- Public Relations Journal- Vol. 3, No. 2, 2009
24
APPENDIX A
RELATIONSHIP MEASURES
Control Mutuality:
1. The organization and public are attentive to what each other say.
2. The organization believes the opinions of the public are legitimate.
3. In dealing with the public, the organization has a tendency to throw its weight around
(reversed).
4. The organization really listens to what the public has to say.
5. The organization gives the public enough say in the decision-making process.
Trust:
6. The organization treats the public fairly and justly.
7. Whenever the organization makes important decisions, I know it will be concerned
about the public.
8. The organization can be relied on to keeps its promises.
9. I believe that the organization takes the opinions of the public into account when
making decisions.
10. I feel very confident about the organization’s capabilities.
11. The organization has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do.
Commitment:
12. I feel that the organization is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to the public.
13. I can see that the organization wants to maintain a relationship with the public.
14. There is a long-lasting bond between the organization and the public.
15. Compared to other organizations, the public values its relationship with the
organization more.
16. The public would rather work with the organization than not.
Satisfaction:
17. The public is happy with the organization.
18. Both the organization and the public benefit from the relationship.
19. Most members of the public are happy in their interactions with the organization.
20. Generally speaking, the public is pleased with the relationship the organization has
established with the public.
21. Most members of the public enjoy dealing with the organization.
