J Bus Ethics
DOI 10.1007/s10551-014-2498-8
Developing Measurement Scales of Organizational and Issue
Legitimacy: A Case of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising
in the Pharmaceutical Industry
Jee Young Chung • Bruce K. Berger •
Jamie DeCoster
Received: 26 September 2014 / Accepted: 6 December 2014
Ó Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2015
Abstract The purpose of this paper is to explore the
concepts of issue legitimacy and organizational legitimacy,
providing a new measure of each construct. The scales
were developed and tested using data collected through a
statewide survey of Alabama residents. Assessments of
issue legitimacy were based on perceptions of direct-to-
consumer advertising, whereas assessments of organiza-
tional legitimacy were based on perceptions of the phar-
maceutical industry as a whole. The findings provide
evidence that organizational legitimacy can be reliably
measured using a five-item scale and issue legitimacy can
be reliably measured using a six-item scale. The implica-
tions of the results and potential uses of the scales are
discussed.
Keywords Issues management
Legitimacy

Organizational legitimacy
Direct-to-consumer advertising
Legitimacy gives an organization a license to operate in a
society. Sethi (1977) suggests that a business is a social
J. Y. Chung (&)
Department of Communication, Southern Utah University,
Centrum 213F, 351 W. University Blvd., Cedar, UT 84720, USA
e-mail: jeeyoungchung@suu.edu
B. K. Berger
Department of Advertising and Public Relations, College of
Communication and Information Sciences, The University of
Alabama, Box 870172, Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0172, USA
e-mail: berger@apr.ua.edu
J. DeCoster
Center for the Advanced Study of Teaching and Learning,
University of Virginia, 350 Old Ivy Way, Suite 100,
Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA
e-mail: jamied@virginia.edu
institution, so it needs the society’s acceptance to survive.
The topic of legitimacy has long been of interest to man-
agement and public relations scholars because of the
important role that organizational legitimacy plays in an
organization’s existence. Despite its importance, the con-
cept of legitimacy and the process by which an organiza-
tion obtains legitimacy is not well understood.
Many scholars have attempted to study legitimacy in
terms of ‘‘regulative legitimacy,’’ which is also based on
institutional theory (Ruef and Scott 1998). This type of
legitimacy is based on the recognition of governments or
professional associations as authorities in an industry. To
obtain regulative legitimacy, organizations change their
operating strategies to meet the regulations or industrial
standards. Other scholars study legitimacy from the per-
spective of resource-dependence theory (Dowling and
Pfeffer 1975; Suchman 1995), which recognizes the influ-
ence of regulative legitimacy, but also considers the
importance of ‘‘normative legitimacy’’ and ‘‘cognitive
legitimacy.’’ An organization obtains normative legitimacy
by following societal norms and expectations and by acting
in ways that people believe are appropriate for the industry.
An organization obtains cognitive legitimacy if it provides
a service that is seen as needed by society, regardless of
how the organization acts. Regulative legitimacy, norma-
tive legitimacy, and cognitive legitimacy are collectively
known as ‘‘organizational legitimacy’’ because they all
focus on the perception of the organization as a whole
(Deephouse and Carter 2005). Scholars working from this
perspective have suggested that legitimacy cannot only be
obtained by following regulations, but can also be obtained
by strategically utilizing communication tactics (Dowling
and Pfeffer 1975; Suchman 1995).
The notion that legitimacy can be obtained through
communication has led public relations scholars to
123

introduce the concept of ‘‘issue’’ or ‘‘actional’’ legitimacy
in an issue management context (Boyd 2000; Brummer
1991; Coombs 1992). While organizational legitimacy
focuses on perceptions of an organization as a whole, issue
legitimacy deals with legitimating a specific issue or an
organizational behavior. Issue legitimacy is critical to
getting the public’s support and involvement in an issue’s
resolution (Boyd 2000; Coombs 1992). Poorly resolved
issues can eventually have negative effects on the percep-
tion of the organization as a whole (Boyd 2000; Coombs
1992). It is therefore important for organizations to manage
perceptions of their overall organizational legitimacy as
well as create the perception that they are legitimately
handling specific issues that are of interest to the public.
However, the concepts of organizational legitimacy and
issue legitimacy have not been explored or defined
empirically.
The current study aims to fill this gap by developing
reliable and valid measures for organizational and issue
legitimacy. To do so, this article reviews (1) literatures on
organizational legitimacy in management, (2) organiza-
tional legitimacy studies and the concept of issue legiti-
macy in public relations, and (3) issues in measuring
legitimacy. Then, the article presents measures of organi-
zational and issue legitimacy and tests the dimensionality
and appropriateness of the provided measures using a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on data collected using
a statewide survey of Alabama residents. In doing so, this
article provides a better understanding for organizational
and issue legitimacy in an issue management context. The
goal of this article is to provide scales that measure the
public’s perception of organizational legitimacy for a
specific organization and/or an issue in its day-to-day
practices.
Literature Review
Organizational Legitimacy
Dowling and Pfeffer (1975) argued that an organization is
perceived as legitimate when its activities are congruent
with normative rules and regulative processes, and when it
fills a role needed by society (Ruef and Scott 1998).
Legitimacy evokes the expectation of voluntary acceptance
or compliance from audiences (Etzioni 1987; Hegtvedt
2004; Suchman 1995). Suchman’s (1995) perspective on
organizational legitimacy was more inclusive and broad-
based, incorporating evaluative and cognitive dimensions.
He argued that ‘‘legitimacy is a generalized perception or
assumption that the actions of an entity are desirable,
proper, or appropriate within some socially constructed
system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions’’ (p. 574).
123
J. Y. Chung et al.
These concepts and definitions of organizational legitimacy
could be theoretically explained based on the neoinstitu-
tionalism (i.e., institutional theory) and resource-depen-
dence theory perspectives.
Institutional theory focuses on the needs of an organi-
zation to survive economically and establish legitimacy
within its environment (Ruef and Scott 1998). Organiza-
tions seek legitimacy and support by conforming their
structures and procedures to widely-accepted cultural
models or rules (Meyer and Rowan 1977; Ruef and Scott
1998). DiMaggio and Powell (1983) label this conformity
as ‘‘isomorphism,’’ specifically defining it as ‘‘a con-
straining process that forces one unit in a population to
resemble other units that face the same set of environ-
mental conditions’’ (p. 149). Organizations compete with
each other not just for resources and customers but also for
political power, institutional legitimacy, and for social and
economic fitness (DiMaggio and Powell 1983). Power
within the established industry is more readily granted to
organizations conforming to the common guidelines than
those which do not, further encouraging isomorphism.
Many scholars have explored isomorphism in terms of
strategies (Deephouse and Carter 2005), structures (Ruef
and Scott 1998), and practices (Deephouse 1996). For
example, Deephouse and Carter (2005) showed the impact
of isomorphism in terms of strategic conformity (bank
asset allocations) on financial legitimacy and public
legitimacy.
While institutional theory advises conformity and pas-
sivity within the environment, resource-dependence theory
stresses the control that an organization has over external
factors (Oliver 1991), asserting that an organization
negotiates environments (Pfeffer and Salancik 1978). Par-
sons (1963) argued that if organizations are to have a
legitimate claim on scarce resources, the goals they pursue
should be congruent with wider societal values. Following
this perspective, Dowling and Pfeffer (1975) defined
organizational legitimacy as ‘‘congruence between the
social values associated with or implied by organizational
activities and the norms of acceptable behavior in the lar-
ger social system’’ (p. 122). Suchman (1995) argued that
legitimacy supports organizations’ continuity and credi-
bility, and that audiences tend to allocate their resources to
desirable, proper, or appropriate organizations. Therefore,
legitimacy provides a basis for decision making that is
different from means-ends rationality (Zimmernan and
Zeitz 2002). This notion has led scholars to explore strat-
egies to manage the legitimation process.
Institutional theory and resource-dependence theory
have been dominant in explaining and examining legiti-
macy (Deephouse and Carter 2005; Ruef and Scott 1998;
Suchman 1995). Some scholars have attempted to integrate
the two perspectives when designing strategies to enhance
Legitimacy
legitimacy (e.g., Ashforth and Gibbs 1990; Elsbach and
Sutton 1992). For example, Elsbach and Sutton (1992)
suggested a process model to minimize the effects of
unlawful organizational actions that uses institutional the-
ory to analyze the crisis environment and resource-depen-
dence theory to develop impression management strategies
to gain public endorsement. They reasoned that decoupling
illegitimate activities from legitimate structures, while
simultaneously increasing conformity to these structures,
produces a beneficial, synergistic effect. Once the organi-
zation conforms to the legitimate structure, a spokesper-
son’s tactics, which shift attention away from those
activities and toward the normative goals endorsed by
publics, are more likely to be effective (Elsbach and Sutton
1992). Suchman (1995) asserted the importance of incor-
porating the two perspectives to make ‘‘a larger picture that
highlights both the way in which legitimacy acts like a
resource and the ways in which it acts like a taken-for-
granted belief system’’ (p. 577).
Organizational Legitimacy and Issue Legitimacy
Based on resource-dependence theory, many scholars have
asserted that communication is important in gaining and
maintaining legitimacy. Dowling and Pfeffer (1975) stressed
that communication between an organization and its publics
is important because social values and expectations are
reflected in communications. The role of communication in
legitimation was first considered within the field of man-
agement (Suchman 1995), but soon found an important role
in corporate communication scholarship (Boyd 2000).
Most research on organizational legitimacy in the field
of corporate communication follows one of two themes:
crisis communication and issues management. The ultimate
goal of crisis communication is to reestablish organiza-
tional legitimacy following an event that threatens public
perceptions of legitimacy (Hearit 1995). Massey (2001)
showed the effectiveness of employing consistent crisis
messages supporting a positive organizational image on
organizational legitimacy. The goal of issues management
is to manage the ‘‘legitimacy gap,’’ which is the difference
between the public’s expectations for the organization and
their perception of organizational behaviors.
Dowling and Pfeffer (1975) argued that the disparity
between social values and organizational behaviors is a
threat to organizational legitimacy. Sethi (1977) used the
concept of legitimacy gaps to explain the logic of business
actions and argued that the gap should be managed stra-
tegically (p. 58). Meyer and Scott (1983) argued that if an
organization violates cultural expectations, it is subject to
legitimacy challenges and may be deemed unacceptable by
stakeholders. Therefore, managing the legitimacy gap is an
important task for any organization.
A few studies in issues management have addressed the
concept of issue legitimacy. Coombs (1992) asserted the
importance of issue legitimacy to gain publics’ support on
an issue, and ultimately, to gain organizational legitimacy.
Boyd (2000) argued that while organizational legitimacy
provides an abstract objective for public relations, specific
strategies must be based on individual organizational
actions and issues. Bortree (2009) examined the impact of
corporate social responsibility activity (i.e., green initia-
tives) on legitimacy for the issue of environmental activi-
ties. It is apparent that defining and examining the concept
of issue legitimacy coupling with organizational legitimacy
is a major priority for issues management context. At the
same time, the concept of issue legitimacy seems to be
congruent with the concept of ‘‘salience of legitimacy’’ in
the management literature, which examines institutional
environments in terms of beliefs, values, and expectations
from stakeholders (Ruef and Scott 1998).
Legitimacy Measurement Studies
While many scholars have attempted to explain and con-
ceptualize organizational legitimacy, only a few scholars
have attempted to measure legitimacy empirically.
Accordingly, the extant literature does not offer a reputable
or standard measurement for organizational legitimacy.
Organizational legitimacy has been measured on an ad-hoc
basis. For example, Elsbach (1994) developed a legitimacy
scale assessed through industrial experts, but did not con-
sider legitimacy from the perspective of the general public.
Massey (2001) developed the Perception of Organizational
Legitimacy scale based on his own operationalization of a
legitimate organization as one ‘‘that is good, credible, and
honest, and has a right to continue operations’’ (p. 165).
However, this scale has not received validation. In addi-
tion, no studies have attempted to measure issue legiti-
macy. Table 1 summarizes previous research that
measured organizational legitimacy.
Citing the difficulty of legitimacy assessment, Ruef and
Scott (1998) called attention to four legitimacy measure-
ment issues: types of legitimacy, source of legitimacy, unit
of legitimacy, and the salience among elements of legiti-
macy. It is important to review these issues in developing
valid and reliable scales for testing organizational and issue
legitimacy. This paper considers all four of these types of
legitimacy.
Types of Legitimacy
Based on institutional theory, many researchers consider
three types of legitimacy of organizational legitimacy:
regulatory legitimacy, normative (moral) legitimacy, and
cognitive legitimacy (Ruef and Scott 1998; Scott 1995;
123
 J. Y. Chung et al.

Zimmerman and Zeitz 2002). Regulative legitimacy stres-

ses regulatory process, rules, and standards, as well as
Experiment

Experiment
Secondary

analysis

analysis
expectations created by governments, professional associ-

Content

Content
Design

ations, and leading organizations (Suchman 1995; Zim-

merman and Zeitz 2002). As an example, an organization
can obtain regulatory legitimacy by registering with gov-
Credential associations
Sources of legitimacy

ernmental bodies such as the Securities and Exchange

Media endorsement,
Media accountants Commission (SEC), or by obtaining professional certifi-
General publics

General publics

enforcement
cation (Zimmerman and Zeitz 2002).

regulatory
Normative legitimacy emphasizes normative rules and
values of society (Scott 1995; Zimmerman and Zeitz 2002)
and can be achieved by adhering to occupational and
professional standards (Ruef and Scott 1998) or commonly
accepted beliefs about ‘‘right things to do’’ judged by the
environmental liability and
Conformity to credentialing

expressing environmental

Isomorphism (conformity)

general public (Suchman 1995, p. 579). As an example, an

Impression management:
voluntary disclosure of
Impression management
Legitimation strategies

organization can obtain normative legitimacy by comply-

association’s rules

ing treating its employees and publics fairly (Zimmerman

Dialogic approach

and Zeitz 2002).

commitment

Cognitive legitimacy is based on the extent to which an

organization is seen to provide a service that is needed by
society (Scott 1995). Suchman (1995) argued that cognitive
legitimacy does not involve the public’s judgment; the
public’s acceptance is necessary and taken for granted
Regulatory legitimacy and

given the organization’s role in society. As an example,

normative legitimacy

organizations such as hospitals or airlines would automat-

Pragmatic legitimacy
Types of legitimacy

Normative (moral)

Normative (moral)

Normative (moral)

ically obtain cognitive legitimacy because of the services

they provide. In addition to these types of legitimacy,
legitimacy

legitimacy

legitimacy

Suchman (1995) added pragmatic legitimacy, which con-

siders the public’s directed interests to the organization. As
an example, an unemployed individual would give prag-
matic legitimacy to an organization that was designed to
help people find jobs. An organization may be judged as
legitimate under one type of legitimacy while not being
Institutional

Institutional

Institutional

judged as legitimate under another (Ruef and Scott 1998).

Integrated
Approach

theory

theory

theory

As an example, hospitals all receive cognitive legitimacy

because of the importance of health care, but might lack
pragmatic legitimacy because individuals lacking the
California cattle industry

finances to make use of their services.

Table 1 Organizational legitimacy assessment studies
Type of organization

Polluting industrial

Sources of Legitimacy
Airline industry

Etzioni (1987) argued that the immediate source of

Hospitals

sectors

legitimacy is the organization’s value to society. From

Banks

institutional theory, Ruef and Scott (1998) asserted that

sources of legitimacy are external observers (e.g.,
Deephouse and Carter (2005)
Bansal and Clelland (2004)

licensing boards, funding agencies, unions) and internal

observers (e.g., workers, managers, staff specialists) of the
Ruef and Scott (1998)

organization who assess its conformity to a specific

standard or model. From this standpoint, many studies
Elsbach (1994)

Massey (2001)

have tested normative legitimacy, which comes from

Author(s)

credentialing associations (Ruef and Scott 1998), or

media endorsements of the industry as a whole (Deep-
house and Carter 2005).

123
Legitimacy

Although an organization can achieve legitimacy by
conforming to the regulations and adhering to industrial
standards, the organization can face legitimacy challenges
from activist groups. Boyd (2000) argued that public support
cannot directly affect organizational survival, but the public
can constrain the organization’s business. Those responsible
for establishing regulatory or normative legitimacy can
require managers to change or re-examine the organization’s
business strategy. Even so, it is important to empirically
examine the general public as a source of organizational
legitimacy because the public creates favorable or unfavor-
able business climates for organizations.
Unit of Legitimacy
The unit of legitimacy refers to the size of the bodies whose
legitimacy is being considered. For a given analysis, the unit
of legitimacy could be (1) an entire industry, (2) an indi-
vidual organization, or (3) subunits and specialized aspects
of organizations (Ruef and Scott 1998). Most legitimacy
measurement studies have focused on entire industries, such
as Deephouse and Carter’s (2005) examination of the
banking industry, Elsbach’s (1992) examination of the cattle
industry, and Ruef and Scott’s (1998) examination of hos-
pitals. In this tradition, this paper examines the legitimacy of
the pharmaceutical industry as a whole.
The next step is to generate items (Churchill 1979) so as
to design actual scales (Spector 1992). For this step,
Churchill (1979) suggested techniques such as literature
search, experience survey, insight stimulating examples,
critical incidents, and focus groups. The extant literature
includes how the variables have been defined, or how many
dimensions or constructs it has (Churchill 1979). The
emphasis of this step should be to develop a set of items
that tap each dimension of the construct (Churchill 1979).
Accordingly, based on a review of the literature, the
researchers made statements based on Suchman’s (1995)
work, incorporating previous measurements such as Els-
bach’s (1994), Massey’s (2001), and Shoemaker’s (1982)
works. A list of potential items was generated by the first
two authors. These items were then evaluated by two
psychology professors for face validity. Their comments
and revisions yielded a list of six issue legitimacy questions
and five organizational legitimacy questions (see the first
column of Table 2). Finally, the performance of the
resulting scale was then empirically examined using a
statewide phone survey.

Salience of Legitimacy Table 2 Means and standard deviations for scale items
Mean SD
When considering individual issues, a choice can be made
to focus on popular and salient topics, or to focus on more Organizational legitimacy items
mundane aspects of an organization. Often times the most O1. I have a positive opinion about prescription drug 4.04 2.04
salient topics are of greatest concern to an organization, companies
since the public perception of these issues is most likely to O2. I believe that the prescription drug companies 4.07 2.12
influence the perceived legitimacy of the organization as a follow government regulations
whole. This paper examines the issue of direct-to-consumer O3. The prescription drug companies do a good job 4.76 1.95
making their drugs
advertising, which has been much debated for years, sug-
O4. I think that the prescription drug companies are 3.23 1.99
gesting that it has high salience.
honest
O5. I think that the prescription drug industry is a 5.70 1.84
Scale Development necessary part of our society
Issue legitimacy items
The first step to develop measurement scales is to con- I1. I have a positive opinion about advertisements for 3.47 2.11
ceptualize clearly the constructs of interest (Churchill prescription drugs
1979; Spector 1992; Hair et al. 1998). This paper employed I2. Prescription drug advertisements have helped me 3.13 2.34
Suchman’s (1995) definition, which stated that organiza- I3. Prescription drug advertisements have helped 3.76 2.23
tional legitimacy is ‘‘the public’s perception or assumption other people I know
that the organizational behaviors are desirable, proper, or I4. Prescription drug advertisements help people 4.33 2.18
appropriate within some socially constructed system of learn about the symptoms for different medical
problems
norms, values, beliefs, and definitions and of an individ-
I5. I think that any problems associated with 4.91 2.04
ual’s interests.’’ This paper operationalized issue legiti-
prescription drug advertisements could be solved
macy as ‘‘the public’s perception or assumption that the
I6. Overall, the benefits from prescription drug 3.67 2.12
issue is proper or appropriate within some socially con- advertisements outweigh the problems
structed system of norms, values, beliefs, and definitions.’’

123

Methods
Data Collection and Sampling
The survey items were included in a larger statewide sur-
vey conducted by the Institute for Social Science Research
at The University of Alabama. The sample was composed
of individuals participating in a survey on social issues in
Alabama during September and October of 2009. The
respondents were selected via a customized random digit
dialing procedure. For each combination of area code and
telephone exchange used in Alabama, the residential blocks
of telephone numbers were identified using a telephone
database. The sample of phone numbers was drawn by
appending a random number to these residential blocks.
Data were collected using a computer-assisted telephone
interviewing system (CATI), allowing for a high degree of
accuracy and rapid turn-around for data analysis. The
survey was conducted by experienced telephone inter-
viewers employed by the institute.
Participants
A total of 3,309 phone numbers was collected, and a total
of 484 adult Alabama residents were interviewed by tele-
phone during September and October of 2009. This paper
used response rate (RR) equations suggested by the
American Association for Public Opinion Research. The
minimum RR (i.e., RR1; the number of complete ques-
tionnaires divided by the number of usable questionnaires
in the sample) was 22 %, and the RR which includes an
estimate of what proportion of cases of unknown eligibility
are actually eligible (i.e., RR4) was 32 %.
The sample was 42.4 % male and 57.6 % female;
60.3 % of the sample was married. The racial distribution
was 78.7 % white, 15.5 % black, 2.6 % other races, and
3.1 % mixed race. Age was collected in 10-year categories,
and the median category was 55–64 years. Income was
also collected categorically, and the median reported
income category was $40,000–$50,000. 47.3 % of the
respondents were employed, 14.5 % were unemployed, and
38.2 % were retired. 42.8 % of the respondents had a high-
school education or less, 27.7 % had some higher educa-
tion without a bachelor’s degree, 18.0 % had a bachelor’s
degree, and 11.6 % had graduate-level training.
Legitimacy Measures
A list of six issue legitimacy questions and five organiza-
tional legitimacy questions was randomly placed in a single
fixed order (interleaving the items for organizational and
issue legitimacy), which was used for all participants (see
Table 2).
123
J. Y. Chung et al.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Both organizational and issue legitimacy were measured on
a scale of 1–7, where higher numbers indicated greater
legitimacy. Descriptive statistics for the individual scale
items are presented in Table 2. The overall mean score for
organizational legitimacy (M = 4.37, SD = 1.45) was
significantly higher than that for issue legitimacy was
(M = 3.87, SD = 1.58), t (480) = 7.70, p \ 0.001.
Among the five organizational legitimacy measures,
respondents rated more favorably the pharmaceutical
companies’ ability to make good products and comply with
regulations (e.g., items O2, O3) than they did their opinions
about those companies. Among the six issue legitimacy
measures, respondents rated highly the notion that the
DTC-ads benefit other people (item I3), though they do not
seem to benefit themselves (item I2). The reliability for
organizational legitimacy (using Cronbach’s alpha) was
0.78 and that of issue legitimacy was 0.81. Organizational
and issue legitimacy were strongly positively correlated,
r(481) = 0.556, p \ 0.001.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
A CFA was used to validate the separation of the legiti-
macy items into the proposed categories (Hair et al. 1998).
Before conducting the main analysis, missing data were
handled by listwise deletion (i.e., all cases with missing
observations on any indicator are removed), resulting in
dropping 109 of the original 483 observations, leaving a
sample size of 374. The results of the CFA are presented in
Table 3. Standardized loadings represent the correlation
between each observed variable and the corresponding
factor. All five items of organizational legitimacy had
significant loadings on the organizational legitimacy con-
struct, and all six items had significant loadings on the
issue legitimacy construct. The factors accounted for a
substantial amount of the item variances, with a median R2
of 0.46.
Model fit was judged by the comparative fit index (CFI),
normative fit index (NFI), and root mean square error of
approximation (RMSEA) indices. Non-significant Likeli-
hood ratio v2 statistics values usually indicate a good fit
(Hair et al. 1998). However, the v2 test is widely recog-
nized to be problematic (Joreskog 1969), because it is
sensitive to sample size. CFI and NFI values should exceed
0.90, and values ranging from 0.50 to 0.80 are deemed
acceptable (Hair et al. 1998).
The fit statistics for our model are presented in Table 4.
The v2 statistic was significant, although this was probably
due to the study’s sample size. Further, Marsh et al. (1996)
Legitimacy

Table 3 Factor loadings of confirmatory factor analysis

Items Standardized Estimate S.E. t R2
loading

Organizational legitimacy
O1. I have a positive opinion about prescription drug companies 0.70*** 1.43 0.10 13.92 0.49
O2. I believe that the prescription drug companies follow government regulations 0.69*** 1.27 0.11 11.88 0.38
O3. The prescription drug companies do a good job making their drugs 0.70*** 1.39 0.099 14.02 0.49
O4. I think that the prescription drug companies are honest 0.61*** 1.23 0.10 15.61 0.39
O5. I think that the prescription drug industry is a necessary part of our society 0.36*** 1.00 0.10 10.07 0.29
Issue legitimacy
I1. I have a positive opinion about advertisements for prescription drugs 0.74*** 1.57 0.10 15.66 0.55
I2. Prescription drug advertisements have helped me 0.61*** 1.59 0.11 13.97 0.46
I3. Prescription drug advertisements have helped other people I know 0.70*** 1.57 0.11 14.89 0.51
I4. Prescription drug advertisements help people learn about the symptoms for different 0.62*** 1.62 0.10 15.61 0.55
medical problems
I5. I think that any problems associated with prescription drug advertisements could be 0.65*** 0.74 0.11 6.75 0.13
solved
I6. Overall, the benefits from prescription drug advertisements outweigh the problems 0.36*** 1.36 0.10 13.48 0.42
*** p \ 0.001

Table 4 Fit measures for the CFA model

Fit index Criteriaa Fit statistics Acceptability

Absolute fit measures Nonsignificant likelihood ratio v2 statistics C0.05 v2 = 141.42, p \ 0.01 Marginal
Root mean squared error residual (RMSEA) B0.8 0.077 Acceptable
Incremental fit measures Comparative fit index (CFI) C0.9 0.96 Acceptable
Normed fit index (NFI) C0.9 0.95 Acceptable
a
The criteria is based on Hair et al. (1998, p. 660)

suggested that the Chi/df index as a useful ratio for
assessing model fit rather than using Chi-square alone. If
this statistic is less than the value 5, the model fits rea-
sonably well. The Chi/df for this measurement model was
3.21, thus, the data fit the model well. The other measures
of model fit all indicated that the CFA model had accept-
able fit.
Discussion
The current paper presents new measurement scales for
organizational and issue legitimacy. Both measures were
developed based on the conceptualization of organizational
legitimacy suggested from Suchman (1995), using the
measurement development procedures suggested by Spec-
tor (1992). A CFA verified the dimensionality and appro-
priateness of a five-item scale for organizational legitimacy
and a six-item scale for issue legitimacy. These findings
confirmed that organizational legitimacy is distinct from
that of issue legitimacy, though the two are related.
Although the public, as a source of organizational
legitimacy, can be the key to understanding organizational
legitimacy, Tornikoski and Newbert (2007) argued that the
concept and construct of legitimacy held by the general
public has been ambiguous and unobservable, which has
made it difficult to examine empirically. Moreover, it also
highlights the importance of public relations to the legiti-
mation process for both organizational and issue legiti-
macy. The current study provides reliable and valid
measures of organizational and issue legitimacy that can be
used to measure these constructs in the general public, and
which are supported by strong evidence of generalizability.
Although other scholars have previously discussed the
concept of issue legitimacy (e.g., Boyd 2000; Coombs
1992), the current study provides the first empirical
investigation of similarities and differences between orga-
nizational and issue legitimacy. The findings demonstrated
that perceptions of organizational legitimacy can be
favorable even when perceptions of issue legitimacy are
less or not favorable. For communication practice, these
measures can be used to obtain an understanding of the

123

public’s perception of certain issues apart from its per-
ception of an organization as a whole. An organization
better understands issues using issue legitimacy measures,
then utilize information into enhancing organizational
legitimacy, and using such understanding to develop
appropriate communication strategies and tactics.
This study advances the understanding of sub-categories
of organizational legitimacy. Kostova and Zaheer (1999)
asserted that ‘‘there are different types of legitimacy that
reflect the different types of institutions operating in the
environment, such as sociopolitical, cognitive, and prag-
matic legitimacy, among others’’ (p. 67). The current study
showed that items related to cognitive perception (such as
‘‘I think that the prescription drug industry is a necessary
part of our society’’) were evaluated more positively than
items related to pragmatic perception (such as ‘‘I think that
the prescription drug companies are honest’’). Respondents
took the existence of the pharmaceutical industry for
granted but believed it was essential to society. Thus,
although the public distrusts the pharmaceutical industry,
they also believe that it contributes greatly to society.
This study suggests some practical implications for
strategic communication campaigns. For example, phar-
maceutical companies might want to focus more on DTC
ads that highlight the role and importance of the pharma-
ceutical industry in society, rather than focusing on brand
names. Additionally, there may be value in using messages
that emphasize the benefits of prescription drugs more
broadly, such as by saying ‘‘XX product helps depression
patients to participate in healthy daily life,’’ rather than
focusing on the efficacy of the specific product, such as by
saying ‘‘XX product reduces depression symptoms by
5 %.’’ The pharmaceutical industry also might benefit from
DTC ads that are oriented more toward education rather
than toward the promotion of specific products.
The current study has certain limitations. First, although
the statewide survey provides strong evidence for the
generalizability of the results, these scales should be further
tested with different issues in different industries. Many
scholars suggest that the evaluation of organizational
legitimacy differs between industries and situations (Ruef
and Scott 1998). Second, the current study did not produce
data that could be used to test the predictive validity of the
measures. Additional studies should be conducted to
demonstrate relationships of the scales to important out-
comes, such as consumer attitudes and behaviors. Lastly,
this study focuses on public perceptions rather than per-
ceptions of the individuals that exert control over the
industry. Given the current study’s focus on DTC ads in the
pharmaceutical industry, it is important to show that the
results generalize to important stakeholders who have
control over the industry, such as doctors and pharmacists.
A survey conducted by the Food and Drug Administration
123
J. Y. Chung et al.
(Aikin et al. 2004) showed that about half of all physicians
felt some pressure to prescribe as a result of DTC ads,
which is a concern that would not be reflected in the
general public. Doctors, pharmacists, and other healthcare
practitioners may have different perceptions of issue
legitimacy of DTC ads and organizational legitimacy of the
pharmaceutical industry.
Despite these limitations, the measures of organizational
and issue legitimacy based on the general public provide
increased understanding of an organization and an issue for
public relations practices. The measures also advance our
understanding of issue and organizational legitimacy and
contribute to theory development in these areas.
References
Aikin, K. J., Swasy, J. L., & Braman, A. C. (2004). Patient and
physician attitudes and behaviors associated with DTC promo-
tion of prescription drugs: Summary of FDA survey research
results. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Food and Drug Administration.
Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The double-edge of
organizational legitimation. Organization Science, 1(2),
177–194.
Bortree, D. S. (2009). The impact of green initiatives on environ-
mental legitimacy and admiration of the organization. Public
Relations Review, 35, 133–135.
Boyd, J. (2000). Actional legitimation: No crisis necessary. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 4, 341–353.
Brummer, J. J. (1991). Corporate responsibility and legitimacy: An
interdisciplinary analysis. New York: Greenwood.
Churchill, G. A. (1979). A paradigm for developing better measures
of marketing constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 16,
64–73.
Coombs, W. T. (1992). The failure of the task force on food
assistance: A case study of the role of legitimacy in issue
management. Journal of Public Relations Research, 4(2),
101–122.
Deephouse, D. L. (1996). Does isomorphism legitimate? Academy of
Management Journal, 39(4), 1024–1039.
Deephouse, D. L., & Carter, S. M. (2005). An examination of
differences between organizational legitimacy and organiza-
tional reputation. Journal of Management Studies, 42(2),
329–350.
DiMaggio, P. J., & Powell, W. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited:
Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organiza-
tional fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
Dowling, J., & Pfeffer, J. (1975). Organizational legitimacy: Social
values and organizational behavior. Pacific Sociological Review,
18(1), 122–136.
Elsbach, K. D. (1994). Managing organizational legitimacy in the
California cattle industry: The construction and effectiveness of
verbal accounts. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 57–88.
Elsbach, K. D., & Sutton, R. I. (1992). Acquiring organizational
legitimacy through illegitimate actions: A marriage of institu-
tional and impression management theories. Academy of Man-
agement Journal, 35(4), 699–738.
Etzioni, A. (1987). Entrepreneurship, adaptation and legitimation: A
macro-behavioral perspective. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization, 8, 175–189.
Legitimacy
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998).
Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
Hearit, K. M. (1995). Mistakes were made: Organizationa, apologia,
and crises of social legitimacy. Communication Studies, 46(1),
1–17.
Hegtvedt, K. (2004). Legitimizing legitimacy: Shaping a new frontier
of research. Social Justice Research, 17(1), 93–109.
Joreskog, K. G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum
likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34, 183–202.
Kostova, T., & Zaheer, S. (1999). Organizational legitimacy under
conditions of complexity: The case of the multinational enter-
prise. Academy of Management Review, 24(1), 64–81.
Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. T. (1996). An evaluation of
incremental fit indices: A clarification of mathematical and
empirical processes. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker
(Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling techniques (pp.
315–353). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Massey, J. E. (2001). Managing organizational legitimacy: Commu-
nication strategies for organization in crisis. The Journal of
Business Communication, 38(2), 153–183.
Meyer, J., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organization: Formal
structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology,
83, 340–363.
Meyer, J. W., & Scott, R. (1983). Organizational environments:
Ritual and rationality. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Oliver, C. (1991). Strategic responses to institutional processes.
Academy of Management Review, 16(1), 145–179.
Parsons, T. (1963). On the concept of influence. Public Opinion
Quarterly, 27, 63–82.
Pfeffer, J., & Salancik, G. R. (1978). Organizational decision making
as a political process: The case of a university budget.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 19, 135–151.
Ruef, M., & Scott, M. (1998). A multidimensional model of organi-
zational legitimacy: Hospital survival in changing institutional
environments. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43, 877–904.
Scott, W. A. (1995). Reliability of content analysis: The case of
nominal scale coding. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 19(3),
321–325.
Sethi, S. P. (1977). Advocacy advertising and large corporations:
Social conflict, big business image, the news media, and public
policy. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
Shoemaker, P. J. (1982). The perceived legitimacy of deviant political
groups: Two experiments on media effects. Communication
Research, 9(2), 249–286.
Spector, P. E. (1992). Summated rating scale construction: An
introduction. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Suchman, M. C. (1995). Managing legitimacy: Strategic and institu-
tional approaches. Academy of Management Review, 20(3),
571–610.
Tornikoski, E. T., & Newbert, S. L. (2007). Exploring the determi-
nants of organizational emergence: A legitimacy perspective.
Journal of Business Venturing, 22, 311–335.
Zimmerman, M. A., & Zeitz, G. J. (2002). Beyond survival:
Achieving new venture growth by building legitimacy. Academy
of Management Review, 27(3), 414–431.
123