See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/273580417

A Study on Dialogic Communication, Trust, and Distrust: Testing a Scale for

Measuring Organization–Public Dialogic Communication (OPDC)

Article  in  Journal of Public Relations Research · March 2015

DOI: 10.1080/1062726X.2015.1007998

CITATIONS READS

79 2,178

3 authors, including:

Sung-Un Yang Minjeong Kang

Indiana University Bloomington Indiana University Bloomington
38 PUBLICATIONS   2,755 CITATIONS    19 PUBLICATIONS   944 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Organization-Public Relationships and Reputation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Minjeong Kang on 18 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Public Relations Research, 27: 175–192, 2015
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1062-726X print/1532-754X online
DOI: 10.1080/1062726X.2015.1007998

A Study on Dialogic Communication, Trust, and Distrust:

Testing a Scale for Measuring Organization–Public
Dialogic Communication (OPDC)

Sung-Un Yang and Minjeong Kang

Downloaded by [Indiana University Libraries] at 11:47 21 January 2016

Department of Journalism, Indiana University

Heewon Cha
Division of Communication and Media, Ewha Womans University, Republic of Korea

Although there is a wide range of discussion on dialogic communication, or dialogue, in the field of
public relations, little research has dealt with the empirical measurement of organization–public
dialogue. The primary purpose of this study was to test the proposed scale for measuring
organization–public dialogic communication (OPDC). Additionally, this study aimed to demonstrate
the link between dialogic communication and trust=distrust between organizations studied and their
publics. For the research purpose, two anonymous online surveys were used to collect the data. The
participants were American consumers randomly selected from a representative research panel of
online survey participants (N ¼ 704). According to the results, the proposed 2-factor, 28-item scale
of OPDC was valid and reliable. Also, for further empirical validation, this study found that the
proposed scale of OPDC is significantly related to public trust and distrust. Given the scarcity of
the empirical research on OPDC, the results of this study can contribute to further research in
communication management.

Due to power imbalances, organizations have often been ignorant of publics in communication,
considering that publics are powerless (Dozier & Lauzen, 2000). However, especially to deal
with conflict issues, organizations need to effectively engage in dialogue with publics (Botan,
1997). Past research has suggested that the existence of key stakeholder publics, like a
double-edged sword, can be ‘‘potential beneficiaries and=or risk bearers’’ of organizations (Post,
Preston, & Sachs, 2002, p. 19), given the interdependency in achieving goals (Freeman, 1994;
J. E. Grunig, 1997).
The primary purpose of this study is to shed light on tenets of such dialogic communication in
the context of organization–public relationships. Although there is a wide range of discussion on
the concept of dialogue in public relations, little research has dealt with the empirical measure-
ment of dialogue. Scholars, such as Kent and Taylor (2002), paved an important theoretical
foundation of dialogic communication in the organization–public communication. In this study,
we attempted to suggest a valid, reliable scale for measuring organization–public dialogic

Correspondence should be sent to Heewon Cha, Division of Communication and Media, Ewha Womans University,
Seoul, Republic of Korea. E-mail: heewon@ewha.ac.kr
 176 YANG, KANG, CHA

communication (OPDC), based on key theoretical and philosophical discussion of dialogic

communication from diverse disciplines, including Rawlins (2008), Kent and Taylor (2002),
J. E. Grunig (1992, 1997, 2001, 2006), Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999), Botan (1997), Foss and
Griffin, (1995), Clark and Brennan (1991), Habermas (e.g., 1984, 1987), Monge, Bachman,
Dillard, and Eisenberg (1982), Johannesen (1971), and Buber (1958).
Another purpose of this study is to explore how OPDC is related to trust and distrust. Past
public relations research has suggested that effective engagement in dialogic communication
often plays critical roles in cultivating quality organization–public relationships (Bruning, Dials,
& Shirka, 2008; Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999). However, there has been little research about nega-
tive attributes of organization–public relationships caused by a perceived lack of, or ineffective
Downloaded by [Indiana University Libraries] at 11:47 21 January 2016

practice of, dialogic communication. Often, negative attributes become more salient in the minds
of publics (Kahneman & Tversky, 1979). For example, if OPDC communication reveals differ-
ences rather than similarities of communicative goals among various involved publics (Kent &
Taylor, 2002; Theunissen & Wan Noordin, 2012), dialogic communication can create undesir-
able outcomes due to disagreement and conflict, such as deepened or revealed differences or
frustration (Leitch & Nelson, 2001). Hence, as a starting point, this study aims to explore
how OPDC is related to publics’ evaluations on trust and distrust with organizations. Trust
and, particularly, distrust are pertinent to the effective practice of dialogic communication
(Kramer, 1999; Lewicki, McAllister, & Bies, 1998).
Given the scarcity of empirical measures of OPDC and the increasing need to implement it in
practice, the results of this study can contribute to further research and practice in public relations.
For this study, we draw on multidisciplinary theoretical foundations and suggest a two-factor,
28-item scale of dialogic communication in the context of the organization–public communi-
cation. The proposed scale can help public relations researchers expand the existing organiza-
tion–public relationship research by linking specified attributes of OPDC to the existing body
of research on organization–public relationship, including relationship cultivation strategies
and relationship outcomes. Professionals can use the findings of this study to understand key
tenets of dialogic communication, which can facilitate organizational understanding of publics’
various behavioral outcomes.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Defining OPDC

This study defines OPDC as the orientation of mutuality and the climate of openness that an organi-
zation and its publics hold in communication to bring about mutually beneficial relationships. In
previous theoretical essays, scholars have also viewed OPDC as an orientation in communication,
and not necessarily a specific method or process (e.g., Botan, 1997; Kent & Taylor, 2002). In defin-
ing the concept of dialogic communication in the context of organization–public communication,
we have reviewed the literature from diverse disciplines, including public relations, interpersonal
communication, speech=rhetorical communication, critical theory in philosophy, management,
organizational communication, and public affairs. Among them, this study was most influenced
by theories or concepts as (a) dialogic theory (Buber, 1958), (b) symmetrical communication
(J. E. Grunig, 1992, 1997, 2001, 2006), and (c) communicative action theory (Habermas, 1984, 1987).
 DIALOGIC COMMUNICATION, TRUST, AND DISTRUST 177

Buber (1958), a philosopher, emphasized the orientation of mutuality to differentiate dialogue

from monologue in dialogic theory. Buber explained dialogue by the I-Thou relationship in
which communicators have the orientation of mutuality, viewing other parties as having a unity
of being. On the other hand, monologue is confined by the I-It relationship, a relationship of
separateness and detachment. There also exists conceptual similarity between Buber’s I-Thou
relationship and Habermas’ theory of communicative action, as both represent ‘‘intersubjective,
ethical, and dialogical’’ facets of communication (Kim & Kim, 2008, p. 56). Additionally,
Habermas’ theory of communicative action suggests the climate of openness to facilitate
dialogic communication. Accordingly, equal access for all communication participants is a
necessary condition for a symmetrical distribution of opportunities for dialogic interaction.
Downloaded by [Indiana University Libraries] at 11:47 21 January 2016

The concept of symmetrical communication also has a strong tie to dialogic communication.
Symmetrical communication is an approach to public relations practice that seeks to ‘‘serve the
public interest, develops mutual understanding between organizations and their publics,
contributes to informed debate about issues in society, and facilitate dialogue and collaboration
between organization and their publics’’ (J. E. Grunig, 2000, p. 30). As noted by J. E. Grunig,
symmetrical communication is an approach=model of public relations practice, rooted in systems
theory, which can facilitate dialogic communication as an outcome=product of ongoing relation-
ship building (Kent & Taylor, 1998, 2002). Dialogic theory had existed decades before
symmetrical communication was suggested in public relations (e.g., Buber, 1958); the conver-
gence of both concepts has become increasingly pertinent to the practice and study of public
relations from relationship management theory (Bruning et al., 2008).

OPDC: Orientation of Mutuality

Mutuality in dialogic communication refers to the mutual confirmation of unique values in dif-
ferent views, brought by each communicator (Baxter & Montgomery, 1996; Johannesen, 1971;
Kent & Taylor, 2002). The nature of a relationship between an organization and its publics is
often described as mutual dependence, or interrelatedness (e.g., Broom & Sha, 2012). Because
of this mutual dependence between organizations and publics, a group of individuals organizes
as a public, a collective entity facing a similar problem, to resolve their problems through
communicative behaviors (J. E. Grunig, 1997).
Especially in the concept of mutuality orientation, the recognition or acknowledgement of
another communication party’s unique value or presence is essential (Botan, 1997). For effective
OPDC, both organizations and publics need to accept that the other party’s opinions are worthy
of consideration (Foss & Griffin, 1995) and must find common ground with each other (Clark &
Brennan, 1991). When this foundation of mutuality is solidly established, organizations and
publics can work toward cooperative attainment of their goals (J. Grunig, 2001) by being sensi-
tive in recognizing the needs of each communication party with respect and empathy (Burleson
& Macgeorge, 2002).
From the existing literature, this study identifies the following six attributes for this factor
of mutuality orientation: (a) grounding, (b) collaboration, (c) confirmed equality, (d) responsiveness,
(e) respect, and (f) empathy.
First, grounding refers to a mutual orientation of communicators to share common ground.
For effective dialogic communication, organizations need to invite publics to communicate, find
 178 YANG, KANG, CHA

common ground with publics, and establish that what has been said has been correctly
understood by both parties. Open houses, town hall meetings, and public hearings can be good
examples of building effective grounding. Without effective grounding in communication,
communication between multiple parties is subject to monologue (Clark & Brennan, 1991).
Accordingly, Clark and Brennan (1991) explained grounding in communication: ‘‘In communi-
cation, common ground cannot be properly updated without a process we shall call grounding.
In conversation, for example, the participants try to establish what has been said has been under-
stood’’ (p. 128). Therefore, grounding includes correct, effective encoding and decoding of
messages (Monge et al., 1982) to enhance communication competencies.
Regarding collaboration, the second attribute of mutuality, the concept can be defined as an
Downloaded by [Indiana University Libraries] at 11:47 21 January 2016

orientation aimed at attaining shared communicative goals. The theory of coordinated manage-
ment of meaning suggests that effective dialogues require not only one party’s actions, but also
the complementary actions of others, such as inviting others into dialogue (Pearce & Pearce,
2004). In this regard, collaboration is similar to Buber’s turning toward (1958) and engagement
(Kent & Taylor, 2002). In the context of OPDC, communication competencies cannot be
achieved without both parties’ efforts and willingness to achieve mutually effective communi-
cation goals (McCroskey, 1984). Therefore, Handerson (2008) referred to such collaboration
objectives as ‘‘being other-oriented’’ in balancing communication goals.
Third, confirmed equality refers to the orientation of communicators in establishing equal
value for all parties in dialogue. Foss and Griffin’s (1995) notion of invitational rhetoric, a con-
cept that coincides with dialogic communication, emphasized equality between dialogue partners
as one of the core characteristics of invitational rhetoric: i.e., ‘‘an invitation to understanding as a
means to create a relationship rooted in equality, immanent value, and self-determination’’ (Foss
& Griffin, 1995, p. 5). Rather than ‘‘an observer or onlooker,’’ mutual confirmation of equality
prompts communication participants to engage in dialogue (Johannesen, 1971, p. 375). One
party’s gaining of control over other parties leads to a failure of dialogic communication.
Dialogic communication can be nurtured when all parties mutually confirm each party’s inherent
uniqueness on the basis of equality (Foss & Griffin, 1995; Johannesen, 1971). In public rela-
tions, Botan (1997) noted the importance of equality: ‘‘Traditional approaches to public relations
relegate publics to a secondary role, making them instruments for meeting organizational policy
or marketing needs; whereas, dialogue elevates publics to the status of communication equal
with the organization’’ (p. 196).
Next, responsiveness refers to mutual orientation of otherness, which requires each communi-
cator to be sensitive in recognizing the needs of other parties. Self-oriented assertiveness and
other-oriented responsiveness are critical variables in deciding communication competencies
from the perspective of socio-communicative orientation (Dilbeck & McCroskey, 2009).
Therefore, effective OPDC requires the organization to be a good listener, responsive to publics’
feedback, and sensitive to publics’ evolving needs (Monge et al., 1982). Unlike monologue, dia-
logic communication demands organizations remain aware of, and in contact with, publics to
establish and cultivate the relationship. Likewise, Kent and Taylor (2002) emphasized immedi-
acy of presence: ‘‘the feature of immediacy of presence suggests that parties involved are com-
municating in the present about issues, rather than after decisions have been made’’ (p. 26).
By means of respect, defined as a mutual orientation of unconditional supportiveness of other
communication parties (Johannesen, 1996), OPDC can be differentiated from unilateral, asym-
metrical advocacy (J. E. Grunig, 2001). Although there are differing opinions among multiple
 DIALOGIC COMMUNICATION, TRUST, AND DISTRUST 179

communication parties, for effective dialogic communication to occur, each communicator needs
to retain positive regard toward others (Burleson & Macgeorge, 2002), seek the welfare of others
(Kent & Taylor, 2002), provide support to others, share responsibilities, and be altruistic in
accommodating others’ feedback (Kaptein & Van Tulder, 2003). In other words, each party
in the dialogue needs to have a positive regard for the legitimacy of the other party’s opinion,
no matter how different it may be from their own. A good dialogue cannot occur without respect
for each other.
Finally, empathy plays an important role in a communicator’s indirect experience of other
communicators’ feelings in dialogic communication (Kent & Taylor, 2002). Empathy is also
the ability to predict other communicators’ needs and feelings (Trenholm & Jensen, 2000) to
Downloaded by [Indiana University Libraries] at 11:47 21 January 2016

be ‘‘supportive’’ (Kent & Taylor, 2002, p. 27). For effective OPDC, organizations need to be
empathetic in understanding publics’ feelings, and be able to estimate how publics might feel
at a particular moment.

OPDC: Climate of Openness

In addition to mutuality, there exists a substantial amount of literature on dialogue emphasizing a

climate of open communication. In OPDC, with willingness and opportunities for open and hon-
est communication, both organizations and publics can engage in effective dialogic communi-
cation; if not, ethical concerns of manipulation can occur as a consequence (Theunissen &
Wan Noordin, 2012). Without an open and honest climate for communication, dialogue is not
much different from discussion—or other similar concepts such as debate, mediation, or negoti-
ation (Burchell & Cook, 2008; Chapman, Ramondt, & Smiley, 2005). For our study, the review
of literature on dialogue supports openness having the following three attributes: (a) accessi-
bility, (b) genuineness, and (c) transparency.
Habermas (e.g., 1984, 1987) considered accessibility as a critical attribute of dialogic
communication regarding democratic communicative action. According to Habermas’s theory
of communicative action, equal access for all communication participants is a necessary con-
dition for a symmetrical distribution of opportunities in dialogic interaction (Dutta-Bergman,
2006). In the context of OPDC, organizations need to allow publics open access to information
and communication channels. Organizations must also allow publics the opportunities to share
their opinions freely, be easy to talk to, and be timely in providing useful information to publics.
Also, publics need to be able to express differing point of views.
Next, genuineness refers to the establishment of a climate of communication that generates
authentic interest in communication between the participants. Kent and Taylor (2002) explained
genuineness further: ‘‘Dialogue is honest and forthright. . . . Indeed, organizations and publics
that deal truthfully with one another are much more able to come to mutually beneficial solu-
tions’’ (p. 29). Botan (1997) also elaborated on the need for genuineness in effective OPDC,
‘‘Dialogic communication, then, would be characterized by a relationship in which both parties
have genuine concern for each other, rather than merely seeking to fulfill their own needs’’ (p.
192, emphasis added).
Finally, transparency refers to a climate of communication to make organizational communi-
cation clear to publics in terms of information disclosure. On the basis of Balkin’s (1999) con-
ceptualization of transparency, Rawlins (2008) explained transparency as having three important
 180 YANG, KANG, CHA

elements: ‘‘(a) information that is truthful, substantial, and useful; (b) participation of
stakeholders in identifying the information they need; and (c) objective, balanced reporting of
an organization’s activities and policies that holds the organization accountable’’ (Rawlins,
2008, p. 6).
To summarize, the examination of theoretical discussions on dialogic communication (e.g.,
Botan, 1997; Buber, 1958; J. E. Grunig, 1992, 1997, 2002, 2006; Habermas, 1984, 1987;
Johannesen, 1971; Kent & Taylor, 2002; Monge et al., 1982; Rawlins, 2008) suggests an empiri-
cal measure for the perceived quality of OPDC in two factors of mutuality and openness with
following attributes: for mutuality orientation, (a) grounding, (b) collaboration, (c) confirmed
equality, (d) responsiveness, (e) respect, and (f) empathy; and for openness climate, (a) accessi-
Downloaded by [Indiana University Libraries] at 11:47 21 January 2016

bility, (b) genuineness, and (c) transparency. Therefore, this study tests the soundness of the
proposed scale for OPDC.

Research question: To what extent is the proposed scale of organization-public dialogic communi-
cation (OPDC) valid and reliable?

Trust, Distrust, and OPDC

This study attempts to validate the proposed scale of dialogic communication on the basis of its
strong relationship with the existing measures of trust and distrust. Past public relations research
has suggested significant effects when considering organizational dialogue with publics on the
quality organization–public relationship (e.g., Bruning et al., 2008; Kent & Taylor, 2002). Many
public relations researchers have viewed trust as a key dimension of organization–public
relationships (e.g., Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999; Ki & Hon, 2007; Yang, 2007). We claim that
trust=distrust is the most pertinent outcome of OPDC. As dialogic communication can often
reveal differences rather than similarities of goals, OPDC can potentially lead to irreconcilable
conflicts (Leitch & Nelson, 2001), which can put communication parties in vulnerable=risky
situations (Kent & Taylor, 2002; Theunissen & Wan Noordin, 2012). Consequently, public
judgments on trust=distrust of organizations can be significantly influenced by OPDC.
Past research supports such a claim on the effects of dialogic-communication on relational
trust=distrust. Trust=distrust is essentially an expectation or calculation of other relational
parties’ credibility (e.g., competence, integrity, or dependability) and benevolence in such vul-
nerable situations (Adams, Highhouse, & Zickar, 2010; Cho, 2006; Lewicki et al., 1998; Wicks,
Berman, & Jones, 1999). Therefore, in terms of calculated efforts to reduce uncertainty in vul-
nerability, it is very likely that relational trust=distrust is affected by the perceived quality of dia-
logic communication, such as finding common ground, reciprocal approach, empathy, or honest
communication. For example, in their model of social dialogue, Bickmore and Cassell (2001)
found that attributes of social dialogue (e.g., finding common ground and reciprocal appreci-
ation) influenced user trust in computer-interactive communication.
In addition to relational trust, this study also intends to explore distrust as a critical outcome of
OPDC. Whether or not trust and distrust are distinct concepts has been a much-debated topic
(Dimoka, 2010). There has been increasingly strong evidence suggesting that distrust should
be treated as a different concept from trust, since Kahneman and Tversky (1979) called for a
distinction between positive and negative valence constructs. Accordingly, negative attributes
 DIALOGIC COMMUNICATION, TRUST, AND DISTRUST 181

are often more saliently perceived than positive attributes. Many have pointed out that distrust is
qualitatively distinctive from trust (e.g., Bewsell, 2012; Cho, 2006; Kramer, 1999; Lewicki et al.,
1998; Sitkin & Roth, 1993; Swift, 2002). For example, Swift (2002) considered underlying
assumptions of distrust as different from those of trust. Trust was seen as ‘‘reliance on the pre-
dictability of the other’s behavior’’ in vulnerability, and distrust as an ‘‘assumption that the agent
will pursue self-interest with guile’’ (p. 19). Therefore, distrust is not the absence of trust (Lewicki
et al., 1998). Lewicki et al. (1998) argued, ‘‘It would be misleading to assume either that the posi-
tive predictors of trust would necessarily be negative predictors of distrust, or that the positive
consequences of trust would necessarily be influenced negatively by increased distrust’’ (p. 448).
By integrating several previous studies (e.g., Adams et al., 2010; Bewsell, 2012), organiza-
Downloaded by [Indiana University Libraries] at 11:47 21 January 2016

tion–public trust is herein theoretically defined as integrity (i.e., expectations on an organiza-

tion’s fairness and justice) and competence (i.e., expectations on an organization’s ability),
whereas organization–public distrust is defined as discredibility (i.e., concerns about an organi-
zation’s violation of obligations and reckless behavior) and malevolence (i.e., concerns an orga-
nization’s intended harm and lack of commitment to public welfare). On the basis of the
discussed relationship between perceived quality of OPDC and trust=distrust, this study suggests
the following research hypotheses to test:

H1. Perceived quality of organization-public dialogic communication will be positively related to

organization–public trust.
H2. Perceived quality of organization-public dialogic communication will be negatively related to
organization–public distrust.

METHOD

Participants

Anonymous online surveys were used to collect the data. The participants were American
consumers from a research panel of online survey participants, recruited by a professional
research company in United States. This online research panel represented general demo-
graphic compositions similar to the most recent US Census data. A total of 764 participants
responded, of which 704 total participant responses were retained after data cleaning. For
the final data used (N ¼ 704), modes of demographic information include: age (30s ¼ 23.9%);
gender (male ¼ 51%); and education (bachelor’s degree ¼ 30.7%).
For this study, two independent surveys were conducted. All survey questions were identical
across the two survey questionnaires, allowing for consolidation of data for analysis. For each
survey, the participants were asked to select a corporation that they trust or distrust most. To
select a company for each survey, half of the participants were randomly assigned to the survey
questionnaire from the list of Most Admired Companies (‘‘World’s Most Admired Companies,’’
Fortune, March 21, 2011). The rest of the participants were randomly assigned to the other sur-
vey questionnaire, with the list of Most Hated Companies in America used (‘‘The 10 Most Hated
Companies in America,’’ 24=7 Wall Street, January 13, 2012). For the questionnaire with the list
of Most Admired Companies (N ¼ 379), the number of the responses from the survey parti-
cipants was as follows: Amazon.com (n ¼ 106, 13.9%); Apple (n ¼ 41, 10.8%); Google
 182 YANG, KANG, CHA

(n ¼ 37, 9.8%); Coca-Cola (n ¼ 37, 9.8%); FedEx (n ¼ 32, 8.4%); McDonald’s (n ¼ 32, 8.4%);
Microsoft (n ¼ 29, 7.7%); Procter & Gamble (n ¼ 28, 7.4%); Southwest Airlines (n ¼ 24, 6.3%);
and Berkshire Hathaway (n ¼ 13, 3.4%). The questionnaire for the list of Most Hated Companies
(N ¼ 385), the responses from the survey participants was as follows: Bank of America (n ¼ 111,
28.8%); Goldman Sachs (n ¼ 89, 23.1%); Facebook (n ¼ 54, 14%); AT&T (n ¼ 30, 7.8%);
American Airlines (n ¼ 27, 7%); Best Buy (n ¼ 22, 5.7%); Sears (n ¼ 22, 5.7%); Johnson &
Johnson (n ¼ 11, 2.9%); and Netflix (n ¼ 11, 2.9%); and Nokia (n ¼ 8, 2.1%).

Measures
Downloaded by [Indiana University Libraries] at 11:47 21 January 2016

Pretest. We conducted a pretest test for scale development and refinement before the data
collection for this study. After reviewing the literature from multiple disciplines, we examined
key attributes of organization–public dialogue through in-depth interviews with experts. The
reviews from the experts helped guide the study to test content validity by examining whether
theoretical attributes, developed from the literature review, indeed reflect key facets of organi-
zation–public dialogue. The group of experts consisted of 9 managers of communication in cor-
porate and governmental organizations, 6 scholars in mass communication, and 7 experts in
nonprofit=nongovernmental organizations, which included experts from public relations, inter-
personal communication, marketing, speech communication, and public administration. On
the basis of the experts’ review, the initial scale of 39 items in two dimensions was developed.
Second, the researchers tried to establish face validity and concurrent validity. To this end, we
conducted an additional expert audit, with 16 experts in public relations, communication man-
agement, and marketing. The experts evaluated relevance of each item on five-point measures,
weight in each dimension, and possible addition of measurement items or changes in wordings
of measurement items. Considering weight and variances in measures from the expert audit and
results of reliability analysis, the researchers modified the scale from 39 items to 28 items.
To test measurement validity and reliability, a research company conducted an online survey
with a representative sample (N ¼ 300), by approximating a quota sample based on the recent cen-
sus. The survey participants were asked to select four corporations from the list of corporations with
which they had recent, direct experiences, two that they considered good and two that they con-
sidered poor, with respect to the quality of dialogic communication with publics. On the 28-item
scale of organization–public dialogue, the combined data analyzed for this study is N ¼ 1200.
For both factors of mutuality and openness, all individual items had alpha values above 0.85,
which is an acceptable reliability threshold (Hair, Black, Babin, Anderson, & Tatham,, 2006;
Tabachnick & Fidell, 2001). Overall, item reliability for the 18-item mutuality measure was
0.98 and for the 10-item openness measure was 0.95 in Cronbach’s a. After demonstrating
strong evidence of discriminant validity of the two factors (i.e., mutuality and openness), the
proposed measurement model could be retained as a valid model: v2(26, N ¼ 1,200) ¼ 69.61,
p < .001, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) ¼ 0.01, Root Mean Square Error
of Approximation (RMSEA) ¼ 0.04, and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ¼ 0.997.
Measurement items. To collect the data for this study, five-point interval scales, ranging
from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) on each item, were used for the variables of
OPDC, trust, and distrust. Also, included in the survey questionnaire was a brief introduction
of OPDC and some demographic questions.
 DIALOGIC COMMUNICATION, TRUST, AND DISTRUST 183

First, to measure the perceived quality of OPDC, this study operationalized the construct into
two second-order factors of mutuality and openness using multiple subfactors. In total, the proposed
scale of OPDC consists of two second-order factors with 10 subfactors in 28 measurement items
(see Table 1 for complete item description and other details of the entire measurement model).
For the second-order factor of mutuality (a ¼ .97), reliabilities of each subfactor were (a) col-
laboration (a ¼ .93), (b) grounding (a ¼ .94), (c) confirmed equality (a ¼ .84), (d) responsiveness
(a ¼ .94), (e) respect (a ¼ .93), and (f) empathy (a ¼ .94). For the second-order factor of open-
ness (a ¼ .96), reliabilities of each subfactor were (a) accessibility (a ¼ .91), (b) genuineness
(a ¼ .96), and (c) transparency (a ¼ .94).
Second, to measure the perceived quality of organization–public trust and distrust, this study
Downloaded by [Indiana University Libraries] at 11:47 21 January 2016

measured the constructs as second-order factors using multiple subfactors in five-point Likert
measurement items (with 1 ¼ strongly disagree and 5 ¼ strongly agree). For the second-order
factor of organization–public trust (a ¼ .94), reliabilities of each subfactor were competence
(a ¼ .93) and (b) integrity (a ¼ .96). For the second-order factor of organization–public distrust
(a ¼ .94), reliabilities of each subfactor were discredibility (a ¼ .96) and malevolence (a ¼ .94).
To measure trust, this study used six items from the scale of organization–public trust developed
by Hon and J. Grunig (1999). For the benefit of discriminant validity and balanced statistical
comparisons, this study used only the dimensions of competence and integrity from the original
scale. The dependability dimension was purposively dropped, because it can be conceptually
overlapped with discrediblity (i.e., concerns about an organization’s violation of obligations
and reckless behavior) from the distrust measure. Additionally, to measure distrust, this study
adopted seven items from the scale of corporate distrust developed by Adams et al. (2010).
For the entire measurement items, see Table 1.

Data Analysis Procedure

To answer the proposed research question, we used confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). CFA
helped us decide (a) which measurement model can be retainable as a valid measurement model
and (b) the statistical soundness of the selected measurement model (Byrne, 2001; Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2001). As we look to confirm the use of preexisting theoretical attributes in the proposed
measurement model, this study used CFA instead of exploratory factor analysis (EFA), which is
used to explore unknown dimensionalities of observed items (Kline, 1998; Tabachnick & Fidell,
2001). Also, as for a practical purpose, this study used CFA to test the validity and reliability of
the proposed measurement model in second-order latent variables (Byrne, 2001), because such
multilevel constructs of latent variables cannot be directly tested in EFA. Therefore, instead of
using EFA, this study conducted CFA model comparisons to test dimensionalities between the
latent constructs (see Table 2).
We used the following standards, suggested by scholars, as criteria for evaluating statistical
results. To assess data-model fit in the proposed model, multiple data-model fit indexes were
examined, such as CFI, RMSEA, SRMR, and Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) (Holbert &
Stephenson, 2002).
For overall analysis of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), this study used the two-step
processes (Byrne, 2001; Holbert & Stephenson, 2002; Kline, 1998). First, the researchers
used multiple-item indices to test the measurement validity and reliability of the proposed
 184 YANG, KANG, CHA

TABLE 1
Measurement Model of Organization-Public Dialogic Communication (OPDC), Trust, and Distrust with
Standardized Estimates (N ¼ 704)

Std.
Latent variable Measurement item (This organization . . . ) estimate CR AVE

Mutuality Collaboration .98 .97 .93

Grounding .96
Equality .92
Responsiveness .99
Respect .98
Downloaded by [Indiana University Libraries] at 11:47 21 January 2016

Empathy .97
Collaboration Communicates together for mutual betterment (V1). .89 .90 .82
Can deal with publics’ diverse perspectives effectively (V2). .90
Accepts publics’ opinions as worthy of consideration (V3). .92
Grounding Tries to establish that publics correctly understood (V4). .91 .91 .84
Invites publics to communicate (V5). .93
Shares common ground of communication with publics (V6). .91
Empathy Is empathetic in understanding publics’ feelings (V7). .93 .92 .85
Tries to understand problems from publics’ perspectives (V8). .94
Can estimate how publics might feel at the moment (V9). .89
Equality Is not authoritative in communicating with publics (V10). .62 .78 .65
Doesn’t seek control over publics (V11). .85
Is not arrogant in communicating with publics (V12). .91
Responsiveness Is sensitive to publics’ needs of the moment (V13). .88 .90 .81
Pays attention to what publics say (V14). .92
Responds to publics’ messages promptly (V15). .90
Respect Retains positive regards despite different opinions (V16). .88 .90 .81
Recognizes the unique value of publics’ opinions (V17). .92
Is altruistic in accommodating in publics’ feedback (V18). .90
Openness Accessibility .99 .99 .98
Genuineness .99
Transparency .98
Accessibility Shares open access of information to all publics (V19). .82 .88 .79
Allows publics to the opportunities to share their opinions (V20). .86
Is easy to talk to (V21). .92
Is timely in providing information to publics (V22). .94
Genuineness Is honest in communicating with publics (V23). .93 .95 .90
Is straightforward in communicating with publics (V24). .96
Genuinely commits to the conversation with publics (V25). .95
Transparency Is transparent in sharing the org’s intent of communication (V26). .92 .92 .85
Is clear to understand when it communicates with publics (V27). .95
Is not deceptive in interpreting publics’ opinions (V28). .89
Openness Accessibility .99 .99 .98
Genuineness .99
Transparency .98
Accessibility Shares open access of information to all publics (V19). .82 .88 .79
Allows publics to the opportunities to share their opinions (V20). .86
Is easy to talk to (V21). .92
Is timely in providing information to publics (V22). .94

(Continued )
 DIALOGIC COMMUNICATION, TRUST, AND DISTRUST 185

TABLE 1
Continued

Std.
Latent variable Measurement item (This organization . . . ) estimate CR AVE

Genuineness Is honest in communicating with publics (V23). .93 .95 .90

Is straightforward in communicating with publics (V24). .96
Genuinely commits to the conversation with publics (V25). .95
Transparency Is transparent in sharing the org’s intent of communication (V26). .92 .92 .85
Is clear to understand when it communicates with publics (V27). .95
Is not deceptive in interpreting publics’ opinions (V28). .89
Downloaded by [Indiana University Libraries] at 11:47 21 January 2016

Trust Competence .97 .98 .96

Integrity .99
Competence Is positive about the direction in which the company is leading (V30). .90 .90 .81
Has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do (V31). .85
Can keep its promises to it publics (V32). .95
Integrity Sound principles seem to guide the company’s behavior (V33). .95 .93 .88
When the company makes an important decision, publics know the company will .92
consider the decision’s impact on them (V34).
Treats its publics fairly (V35). .94
Distrust Discredibility .96 .96 .93
Malevolence .97
Discredibility Is not respectful of laws (V36). .90 .94 .88
Does not accept accountability for its actions (V37). .96
Does not care about acting ethically (V38). .96
Malevolence People who run the company will lie to increase its profit (V39). .91 .89 .81
Takes a lot more than it gives (V40). .89
Intentionally deceives publics (V41). .94
Exploits its employees (V42). .85

Note. v2 (908, N ¼ 704) ¼ 3331.025, p < 0.001, v2=df ¼ 3.67, SRMR ¼.037, RMSEA ¼.062 (90% CI: .059, .064),
and CFI ¼.943. Standardized estimates all significant at """ p < .001. Composite reliability (CR) above the 0.70 threshold
and an extracted variance (AVE) above the 0.50 threshold.

TABLE 2
CFA Model Comparisons (N ¼ 704): Testing Discriminant Validity Between Mutuality and Openness

Model v2 df p CFI SRMR RMSEA AIC Ddf Dv2 Dp

One-factor model (A) 2007.51 341 <.001 0.941 0.027 0.083 2193.51
Two-factor correlated 1602.33 340 <.001 0.955 0.021 0.073 1790.33 A vs. B: 1 405.18 <.001
model (B)
C vs. B: 1 1325.91 <.001
Two-factor uncorrelated 2928.24 341 <.001 0.908 0.489 0.104 3114.24
model (C)

Note. CFA ¼ confirmatory factor analysis. All three measurement models are based on 2nd-order factors with latent
variables and their measurement indicators as shown in table 1. See illustrative details on the final CFA model from
Figure 1.
 186 YANG, KANG, CHA

measurement model in second-order latent constructs. Second, after the multiple measurement fit
indices had retained a sound measurement model as the final measurement model, this study
analyzed relationships between the proposed latent constructs in structural model.

RESULTS

Research Question: Testing Reliability and Validity of the Proposed Scale for OPDC
Downloaded by [Indiana University Libraries] at 11:47 21 January 2016

Test of discriminant validity. On the basis of theoretical grounds and the need for empirical
confirmation, this study proposed two latent constructs as key dimensions of OPDC. First, to test
discriminant validity (Hair et al., 2006) between the two latent constructs (i.e., mutuality and
openness), we compared CFA models in nested relations based on the v2=df difference tests
and AIC values.
To establish sound discriminant validity of the two latent constructs, the results of the two
factor models (i.e., model B) need to be better than the one factor model (i.e., model A). In terms
of the v2=df tests, the results indicated that two-factor model (i.e., model B) should be retained as
a valid model: Ddf (A vs. B) ¼ 1, Dv2(A vs. B) ¼ 405.18, p < .001. Also, in comparing the
two-factor correlated model (i.e., model B) and the two-factor orthogonal=uncorrelated model
(i.e., model C), we found that two-factor correlated model to be a more valid measurement
model: Ddf (B vs. C) ¼ 1, Dv2(B vs. C) ¼ 1325.91, p < .001. Therefore, the final measurement
model selected was the two-factor correlated model (i.e., model B). See the visual illustration of
the final measurement model from Figure 1.
Test of overall measurement validity. To test the overall measurement validity of the pro-
posed measurement model, this study used multiple data-model fit indexes. Evidence supported
the retainment of the selected measurement model, the two-factor correlated model (i.e., model
B), as a valid model: v2 (94, N ¼ 704) ¼ 1602.33, p < .001, CFI ¼ .955, SRMR ¼ .021,
RMSEA ¼ .073, AIC ¼ 1790.33 (see Table 2). According to the common criteria of valid
measurement models, this study demonstrated that the proposed model passed suggested thresh-
olds (Byrne, 2001; Holbert & Stephenson, 2002; Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 1998), such as CFI
greater than .95, SRMR smaller than .05, RMSEA smaller than .08.
Tests of measurement reliability and construct validity. Next, this study examined
measurement reliability and construct validity. In addition to interitem reliability (a), the com-
posite reliability (CR) estimates the extent to which a set of latent construct indicators share
in their measurement of a construct; the average variance extracted (AVE), as a good measure
of construct validity, is the amount of common variance shared among construct indicators (Hair
et al., 2006). Hair et al. recommend composite reliability above the 0.70 threshold and average
variance extracted above the 0.50 threshold.
For both 2nd-order latent constructs (i.e., mutuality and openness) and their sub-factors,
inter-item reliability is sound: a ranged from .97 (for the mutuality factor) as the highest to
.84 (for the empathy factor) as the lowest. Second, in terms of conposite reliability (CR), CR
ranged from .99 (for the mutuality factor) as the highest to .78 (for the empathy factor) as the
lowest. Last, AVE ranged from .93 (for the mutuality factor) as the highest to .65 (for the
 DIALOGIC COMMUNICATION, TRUST, AND DISTRUST 187
Downloaded by [Indiana University Libraries] at 11:47 21 January 2016

FIGURE 1 2nd-Order Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of the Final Measurement Model: A Scale for Measuring
Organization–public Dialogic Communication (OPDC). v2 (94, N ¼ 704) ¼ 1602.33, p < .001, CFI ¼ .955,
SRMR ¼ .021, RMSEA ¼ .073. All loadings are standardized. See the details regarding all measurement items (i.e.,
V1 to V28) from Table 1. This model was not modified.

empathy factor) as the lowest. These results suggest that the proposed measurement system had
sound composite reliability and construct validity, in addition to sound individual-item measure-
ment reliability.
In summary, the results demonstrate that the proposed two-factor, 28-item scale is valid and
reliable in measuring the perceived quality of OPDC.

Hypothesis 1: Effects of OPDC on Trust

This hypothesis tested the link between the perceived quality of dialogic communication and
trust in organization–public relationship, with key demographic variables (i.e., age, gender,
and educational level) and organizations (i.e., most admired companies vs. most hated compa-
nies) being held constant. In predicting the level of perceived trust with each organization stud-
ied, the companies in Most Admired Companies had a significantly higher level of trust than
those in Most Hated Companies: b ¼ .21, SE ¼ .04, b ¼ .09, CR (z) ¼ 5.26, p < .001.
For both factors of OPDC, this study supported the posited hypothesis that a significant, posi-
tive association existed between the perceived quality of dialogic communication and the level
of trust: (a) in predicting effects of mutuality on trust: b ¼ .25, SE ¼ .06, b ¼ .23, CR (z) ¼ 4.22,
p < .001; (b) in predicting effects of openness on trust: b ¼ .90, SE ¼ .08, b ¼ .69, CR
 188 YANG, KANG, CHA

TABLE 3
Direct Effect Estimates in the Proposed Latent Variable Model (Standard Errors in Parentheses, N ¼ 704)

H Independent Dependent Unstandardized Standardized Critical ratio (Z) p

"""
Org type (Most admired ¼ 1) ! Public trust .21 (.04) .09 5.26
"""
Org type (Most admired ¼ 1) ! Public distrust #.70 (.09) #.33 #7.76
"""
H1 Mutuality ! Public trust .25 (.06) .23 4.22
"""
H1 Openness ! Public trust .90 (.08) .69 11.36
H2 Mutuality ! Public distrust .18 (.13) .17 1.37 .17
"""
H2 Openness ! Public distrust #.55 (.16) #.44 #3.37

Note. Organization Type: 1 ¼ Most Admired Companies, 0 ¼ Most Hated Companies. In addition to organizational
Downloaded by [Indiana University Libraries] at 11:47 21 January 2016

type, the survey participants’ key demographic information was controlled for, including gender, age, and education. v2
(909, N ¼ 704) ¼ 3338.997, p < 0.001, v2=df ¼ 3.673, SRMR ¼ .037, RMSEA ¼ .062 (90% CI: .059, .064), and
CFI ¼ .943. """ p < .001.

(z) ¼ 11.36, p < .001. Overall, this structural model turned out to be retainable as a valid model
on the basis of multiple data-fit indexes: v2 (909, N ¼ 704) ¼ 3338.997, p < .001, CFI ¼ .943,
SRMR ¼ .037, and RMSEA ¼ .062 (see Table 3).

Hypothesis 2: Effects of OPDC on Distrust

The second hypothesis tested the association between the perceived quality of dialogic
communication and distrust in organization–public relationship, with the same key demographic
variables being held constant. In predicting the level of perceived distrust with each organization
studied, the companies in the Most Hated Companies had significantly higher level of distrust
than those in the Most Admired Companies: b ¼ #.70, SE ¼ .09, b ¼ #.33, CR (z) ¼ #7.76,
p < .001.
Hypothesis 2 was partially supported only in the latent construct of openness. For the open-
ness factor, the study results supported the posited hypothesis that a significant, negative associ-
ation existed between the perceived quality of openness and the level of distrust: b ¼ #.55,
SE ¼ .16, b ¼ #.44, CR (z) ¼ #3.37, p < .001. However, the association between the mutuality
factor and distrust was not statistically significant.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this research was two-fold. The primary objective was to propose and test a
measure of dialogic communication in the context of organization–public relationship. Although
there is an ongoing and diverse discussion on the concept of dialogue in public relations, little
research has dealt with empirical measurement. Another purpose of this study was to explore
effects of OPDC in trust and distrust. This study suggested trust as an important outcome of
effective=ineffective dialogic communication between organizations and their key publics. In
addition to trust, we argued that distrust is also an important outcome, and can be especially
pertinent to the studies of OPDC.
 DIALOGIC COMMUNICATION, TRUST, AND DISTRUST 189

There are two important findings. First, results showed the proposed two-factor, 28-item scale
of OPDC to be valid and reliable. Discriminant validity test revealed sound discriminant validity
between the mutuality factor and the openness factor. Overall, on the basis of multiple
data-model fit indexes, this study found that the proposed model can be retained as a valid
measurement model. This study also conducted three different reliability tests (i.e., inter-item
reliability, latent variable composite reliability, and construct reliability). The results suggested
sound reliability for the proposed scale of OPDC.
Second, as an attempt to test concurrent validity with established measures, we aimed to find
strong association between the proposed measure of OPDC and measures of trust and distrust that
have been validated in previous research. Theoretically, previous studies suggest that the perceived
Downloaded by [Indiana University Libraries] at 11:47 21 January 2016

quality of OPDC is expected to be strongly associated with public evaluation of trust and distrust.
This study found empirical links between the proposed measure of OPDC and trust=distrust.
Rather than studying a single organization, this study also validated the results across the 20
companies studied. This research found that the 10 companies on the list of Most Admired Com-
panies had a significantly higher level of mutuality and openness than the 10 companies on the
list of Most Hated Companies, with key demographic variables held constant. Also, this study
found that a much greater gap existed between those two types of organizations in distrust than
in trust. This suggests that distrust may be more salient to publics’ minds than trust, when mem-
bers of publics differentiate companies.
This study found that the openness factor in OPDC had much stronger effects on public trust
and distrust. Rawlins (2008, 2009) found a strong relationship between organizational trans-
parency and stakeholder trust. In predicting distrust, this study found that the strong effects of
openness are particularly strong (i.e., the effect of mutuality on trust was not supported in this
study). In the past, public relations scholars (e.g., Botan, 1997; Kent & Taylor, 2002) have
emphasized orientation of mutuality as the key tenet of dialogic communication between orga-
nizations and their key publics. This study suggests that the openness climate is especially ger-
mane in engendering public trust=distrust. Social media may provide an appropriate channel for
fostering mutuality, which, in turn, will help organizations engage in dialogic communication
with their key publics. However, as the results suggest, using social media to develop a climate
of openness with their publics may be even more critical.
Additionally, another important implication can be suggested from the finding on the insig-
nificant result between mutuality and distrust. The finding should be cautiously taken due to
various statistical factors related to the failure to reject the null hypothesis. However, this finding
can, at least, suggest the distinction between trust and distrust is worth studying regarding
OPDC. Several researchers have claimed that underlying assumption of distrust is different from
trust, because trust is ‘‘reliance on the predictability of the other’s behavior’’ in vulnerability,
and distrust as an ‘‘assumption that the agent will pursue self-interest with guile’’ (Swift,
2001, p. 19). Therefore, it is possible that openness is particularly pertinent to distrust, because
a perceived lack of transparency can strongly lead to distrust judgments. Also, this study found
that trust had a relatively stronger association with mutuality than distrust. Judgments on trust
(i.e., reliance on the predictability of the other party’s behavior) can become cumulative via
varying communicative interactions. Consequently, attributes of mutual orientation becomes
more relevant to trust. Nonetheless, future research needs to further study about those findings:
i.e., how and why the distinction between trust and distrust becomes important regarding differ-
ent dimensions of OPDC.
 190 YANG, KANG, CHA

Despite the implications of this research for both the study and practice of public
relations=communication management, this research has some limitations and suggestions for
future research. First, according to the results, the discriminant validity tests between the two
factors (i.e., mutuality and openness) strongly suggested the final measurement system should
have two distinctive factors rather than one factor. In terms of the v2=df tests, the results indi-
cated that two-factor model should be retained as a valid model against the single factor model:
Ddf (single vs. two-factor) ¼ 1, Dv2(single vs. two-factor) ¼ 405.18, p < .001. Also, all
data-model fit indexes were much better for the two factor model than the single factor model
(see Table 2). Kline (1998) suggested the factor loading smaller than .85 to demonstrate discri-
minant validity. Nonetheless, as shown in Figure 1, this study found a large standardized factor
Downloaded by [Indiana University Libraries] at 11:47 21 January 2016

loading (r ¼ .83), indicating a possible concern about discriminant validity about the two factors
(i.e., mutuality and openness). Future research needs to replicate and retest the dimensionality of
these two factors. Also, there are some indicators that can be possibly highly correlated (e.g.,
confirmed equality and respect). Future research can further work on the proposed scale to
develop a more parsimonious scale with fewer indicators and measurement items.
In terms of demographic and methodological limitations, although this study used a sample
from a representative research panel, the random sampling was not directly made from the entire
population of American consumers. Within a representative online panel of American
consumers, this study made a random selection of participants. However, because the purposes
of this study were to test validity and reliability of a scale for OPDC and to examine its theor-
etical relations with trust and distrust, the researchers consider the data used in this study
appropriate.
Regarding public relations effectiveness, using the proposed measure of OPDC, future
research can consider (a) how OPDC is linked with other organization–public relationship
outcomes, beyond trust=distrust, such as satisfaction, commitment, and control mutuality
(Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999); and (b) which other public relations outcomes can be enhanced
by OPDC, such as favorable organizational reputation, public engagement, or supportive
behaviors (e.g., positive communication behaviors, customer=donor loyalty behaviors).

REFERENCES

24=7 Wall Street (January 13, 2012). The 10 Most Hated Companies in America. Retrieved from http://247wallst.com/
special-report/2012/01/13/the-10-most-hated-companies-in-america/2/
Adams, J. E., Highhouse, S., & Zickar, M. J. (2010). Understanding general distrust of corporations. Corporate
Reputation Review, 13(1), 38–51.
Balkin, J. M. (1999). How mass media stimulate political transparency. Cultural Values, 3, 393–413.
Baxter, L. A., & Montgomery, B. M. (1996). Relating : Dialogues and dialectics. New York, NY: Guilford.
Bewsell, G. R. (2012). Distrust, fear and emotional learning: An online auction perspective. Journal of Theoretical and
Applied Electronic Commerce Research, 7(2), 1–12.
Bickmore, T., & Cassell, J. (2001, March). Relational agents: a model and implementation of building user trust. In Proc.
of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 396–403). Association for Computing
Machinery.
Botan, C. (1997). Ethics in strategic communication campaigns: The case for a new approach to public relations. Journal
of Business Communication, 34(2), 188–202.
Broom, G. M., & Sha, B.-L. (2012). Cutlip & Center’s effective public relations (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River: NJ:
Prentice Hall.
 DIALOGIC COMMUNICATION, TRUST, AND DISTRUST 191

Bruning, S. D., Dials, M., & Shirka, A. (2008). Using dialogue to build organization–public relationships, engage
publics, and positively affect organizational outcomes. Public Relations Review, 34(1), 25–31.
Buber, M. (1958). I and thou (R. G. Smith, Trans.). New York, NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons.
Burleson, B. R., & Macgeorge, E. L. (2002). Supportive communication. In M. L. Kanpp & G. R. Miller (Eds.),
Handbook of interpersonal communication (2nd ed., pp. 374–424). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming.
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chapman, C., Ramondt, L., & Smiley, G. (2005). Strong community, deep learning: Exploring the link. Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 42(3), 217–230.
Cho, J. (2006). The mechanism of trust and distrust formation and their relational outcomes. Journal of Retailing, 82(1),
25–35.
Clark, H. H., & Brennan, S. E. (1991). Grounding in communication. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levince, & S. D. Teasley
Downloaded by [Indiana University Libraries] at 11:47 21 January 2016

(Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 127–149). Washington DC: American Psychological
Association.
Dilbeck, K. E., & McCroskey, J. C. (2009). Socio-communicative orietnation, communication competence, and rhetori-
cal sensitivity. Human Communication, 12(3), 255–266.
Dimoka, A. (2010). What does the brain tell us about trust and distrust? Evidence from a functional neuroimaging study.
MIS Quarterly, 34(2), 1–24.
Dozier, D. M., & Lauzen, M. M. (2000). Liberating the intellectual domain from the practice: Public relations, activism,
and the role of the scholar. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1), 3–22.
Dutta-Bergman, M. J. (2006). U.S. public diplomacy in the middle east. Communication Inquiry, 30(2), 102–124.
Fortune (March 21, 2011). World’s Most Admired Companies. Retrieved from http:archive.fortune.com/magazines/
fortune/mostadmired/2011/full_list
Foss, S. K., & Griffin, C. L. (1995). Beyond persuasion: A proposal for an invitational rhetoric. Communication Mono-
graphs, 62(1), 2–18.
Freeman, R. E. (1994). The politics of stakeholder theory: Some future directions. Business Ethics Quarterly, 409–421.
Grunig, J. E. (1992). Symmetrical systems of internal 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 mangement
(pp. 531–575). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, J. E. (1997). A situational theory of publics: Conceptual history, recent challenges, and new research. In D. Moss,
T. McManus, & D. Vercic (Eds.), Public relations research: International perspectives (pp. 2–45). London: Inter-
national Thompson Business Press.
Grunig, J. E. (2000). Collectivism, collaboration, and societal corporatism as core professional values in public relations.
Journal of Public Relations Research, 12(1), 23–48.
Grunig, J. E. (2001). Two-way symmetrical public relations: Past, present, and future. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of
Public Relations (pp. 11–32). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Grunig, J. E. (2006). Furnishing the edifice: Ongoing research on public relations as a strategic management function.
Journal of Public Relations Research, 18(2), 151–176.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action, Vol. 1: Reason and the rationalization of society. Boston, MA:
Beacon.
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action, Vol. 2: A critique of functionalist reason. Boston, MA:
Beacon.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., & Tatham, R. L. (2006). Multivariate data analysis. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
Holbert, R. L., & Stephenson, M. T. (2002). Structural equation modeling in the communication sciences, 1995–2000.
Human Communication Research, 28(4), 531–551.
Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationship in public relations. Gainesville, FL: Institute
for Public Relations, Commission on PR Measurement and Evaluation.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria
versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.
Johannesen, R. L. (1971). The emerging concept of communication as dialogue. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 57(4),
373–382.
Johannesen, R. L. (1996). Ethics in human communication. (4th ed.). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.
 192 YANG, KANG, CHA

Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47(2),
263–292.
Kaptein, M., & Van Tulder, R. (2003). Toward effective stakeholder dialogue. Business & Society Review (00453609),
108(2), 203–224. doi: 10.1111=1467–8594.00161
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the world wide web. Public Relations Review,
24(3), 321–334.
Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37.
Ki, E. J., & Hon, L. C. (2007). Testing the linkages among the organization–public relationship and attitude and
behavioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(1), 1–23.
Kim, J., & Kim, E. J. (2008). Theorizing dialogic deliberation: Everyday political talk as communicative action and
dilaogue. Communication Theory, 18(1), 93–116.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Downloaded by [Indiana University Libraries] at 11:47 21 January 2016

Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring questions. Annual Review of
Psychology, 50(1), 569–598.
Leitch, S., & Neilson, D. (2001). Bringing publics into public relations: New theoretical frameworks for practice. In R. L.
Heath (Ed.), Handbook of public relations (pp. 127–138). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lewicki, R. J., McAllister, D. J., & Bies, R. J. (1998). Trust and distrust: New relationships and realities. Academy of
Management Review, 23(3), 438–458.
McCroskey, J. C. (1984). Communiction competence: The elusive construct. In R. N. Bostrom (Ed.), Competence in
communication: A multidisciplinary approach (pp. 259–268). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Monge, P. R., Bachman, S. G., Dillard, J. P., & Eisenberg, E. M. (1982). Communicator competence in the workplace:
Model testing and scale development. Communicaton Yearbook, 5, 505–528.
Pearce, W. B., & Pearce, A. K. (2004). Taking a communication perspective on dialogue. In R. Anderson, L. A. Baxter,
& K. N. Cissna (Eds.), Dialogues: Theorizing differences in dialogue (pp. 39–56). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Post, J. E., Preston, L. E., & Sachs, S. (2002). Redefining the corporation: Stakeholder management and organizational
wealth. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Rawlins, B. L. (2008). Measuring the relationship between organizational transparency and employee trust. Public
Relations Journal, 2(2), 1–21.
Rawlins, B. L. (2009). Give the emperor a mirror: Toward developing a stakeholder measurement of organizational
transparency. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(1), 71–99. doi: 10.1080=10627260802153421
Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic ‘‘remedies’’ for trust=distrust.
Organization science, 4(3), 367–392.
Swift, T. (2001). Trust, reputation and corporate accountability to stakeholders. Business Ethics: A European Review,
10(1), 16–26.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
Theunissen, P., & Noordin, W. N. W. (2012). Revisiting the concept ‘‘dialogue’’ in public relations. Public Relations
Review, 38(1), 5–13.
Trenholm, S., & Jensen, A. (2000). Interpersonal communication (4th ed.). Belment, CA: Wadsworth.
Wicks, A. C., Berman, S. L., & Jones, T. M. (1999). The structure of optimal trust: Moral and strategic implications.
Academy of Management review, 99–116.
Yang, S. U. (2007). An integrated model for organization—public relational outcomes, organizational reputation, and
their antecedents. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19(2), 91–121.

View publication stats