|HWH|WMIMI l WNWllllllHlMlWWW : me? This is to certify that the thesis entitled SOUTH KOREAN PUBLIC RELATIONS PRACTITIONERS’ AND JOURNALISTS’ PERCEPTIONS: A GAP ANALYSIS presented by Hyun Jin Kang has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for the MA. degree in Department of Advertising, Public Relations, and Retailing_ Major Profesgor's Signature %\12I91 Date MSU is an afinnafive—action, equal-opportunity employer UBRARY MIChIM‘fi State University an-o-o-u-u-o-o----o-u--u-e-o-o-v-n--u-—----u-I-I-o-—o-----u--I-o-—v--~—----c-o-0-.----u-o-t-I-u--u-n-a-c- PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE U50109 __.S£.P_2_923 NOV 2‘ 3 20 '112 0 '12: 6/07 p:lClRC/DateDue.indd-p.1 SOUTH KOREAN PUBLIC RELATIONS PRACTITIONERS’ AND JOURNALISTS’ PERCEPTIONS: A GAP ANALYSIS By Hyun Jin Kang A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Advertising, Public Relations, and Retailing 2007 ABSTRACT SOUTH KOREAN PUBLIC RELATIONS PRACTITIONERS’ AND JOURNALISTS’ PERCEPTIONS: A GAP ANALYSIS By Hyun Jin Kang The relationship between journalists and public relations practitioners has often been described as a ‘love-hate’ relationship. These two professions are dependant onone another; yet, they have a somewhat adversarial relationship. In order to better manage the relationships with journalists more effectively, public relations practitioners need to examine the underlying source of conflicts. To examine this phenomenon, in this study the coorientation model (McLeod & Chafi'ee, 1973) is used. The coorientation model provides a means to analyze the perceptual balance between public relations practitioners and journalists toward their relationship, which will help public relations practitioners understand the source of conflicts. In particular, perceptions and cross-perceptions are measured in regard to their relationships between South Korean public relations practitioners and journalists, using the organization-public relationship assessment (OPRA) scale developed by Huang (2001 ). The results suggest that the two professions had similar perceptions regarding their relationship quality and both groups perceived their relationship as neutral. However, they failed to estimate the other’s perceptions accurately, and they reported their estimation of each other’s perceptions differently from their own perceptions. Implications for theory development and public relations practices for managing relationship with journalists are provided. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To complete this thesis required a network of support, and I am indebted to many people. I am most especially grateful to my father who must be very pleased in the heaven to see his youngest daughter’s accomplishment, and my mother who always gave me unconditional support and love. I would like to thank my adviser Dr. Teresa Mastin for the encouragement, guidance and warm heart that she gave me. It was the biggest luck for me that I met Dr. Mastin at Michigan State University. I also thank Dr. Joseph Walther who inspired my academic passion and provided valuable feedback on my study, and Dr. Yoonhyeung Choi who always encouraged me and gave good and critical comments on my thesis. I also express my gratitude for my two sisters, Hyunah and Hyunj 00, and two brothers-in—law, Jong-young Kim and Bong-soc Kil, for their supports and encouragement that they provided while I was studying far away fi'om home. I also thank to my dearest niece and nephew, Seohyun and Eunsan, for the endless pleasure they gave me. I also thank my friends, Sungmi Lee and Ina Yoon, who filled my life in Michigan with fun and joy, and Ying-Hsuan Lin, who always gave me helpful and profound advice for my study. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1 CHAPTER II: LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................... 2 CHAPTER III: HYPOTHESES ................................................................ 27 CHAPTER IV: METHOD ....................................................................... 28 CHAPTER V: RESULTS ....................................................................... 35 CHAPTER VI: DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS ..................................... 46 CHAPTER VII: LIMITATIONS ............................................................... 53 CHAPTER VIII: FUTURE RESEARCH ..................................................... 54 APPENDICES .................................................................................... 57 BIBLIOGRAPHY ................................................................................. 74 iv Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Table 4. Table 5. Table 6. Table 7. LIST OF TABLES Respondents’ demographic variables ..................................... 32 Mean and reliability of each variable (PR practitioners) ................ 34 Mean and reliability of each variable (Journalists) ....................... 35 Self-perceptions of public relations practitioners and journalists .. 36 Agreement ..................................................................... 38 Accuracy ....................................................................... 41 Congruency ................................................................... 44 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. The coorientational model ................................................. 25 Figure 2. The coorientational model of relationship ................................ 26 Figure 3. The framework of the research .............................................. 28 I. INTRODUCTION The relationship that exists between journalists and public relations practitioners has often been described as one of love-hate (Shin & Cameron, 2003b); yet, they are mutually dependent on one another. Journalists do not fully trust information generated by public relations practitioners because they think the information has been prepared primarily to promote their organizations’ agenda. Public relations practitioners are aware that journalists’ mistrust the materials they provide and as a result do not believe journalists will be fair to their organizations. Public relations practitioners rely on journalists as one means by which to get their messages to various audiences. Therefore, practitioners attempt to influence the media’s agenda by providing information to journalists. Despite the mutual mistrust, journalists largely rely on news sources from public relations. Information such as press releases offered by public relations practitioners enables journalists to scan virtually endless potential stories. Also, Candy (1982) pointed out that media management tend to use public relations’ subsidized news materials in order to reduce their cost of labor. In such situations, journalists are often forced by necessity to rely on information provided by public relations professionals. Because the source-reporter relationship is highly interdependent but also conflictual, public relations practitioners should manage the relationship with journalists with great care. Therefore, examining perceptual differences that exist between public relations practitioners and journalists is valuable in order to manage their relationships effectively. Toward that end, using the organization-public relationship assessment (OPRA) scales (Huang, 2001) and the coorientational model (McLeod & Chaffee, 1973), this study explores the relationship between public relations practitioners and journalists in South Korea. This research examines: 1) the level of agreement between the two groups regarding their relationship quality; 2) the level of congruency between each group’s perceptions of their relationship with the other group and their estimation of the other group’s perception about their relationship; and 3) the level of accuracy of each group’s estimation of the other group’s perceptions. II. LITERATURE REVIEW 1. Relationship between journalists and public relations practitioners The relationship between journalists and public relations practitioners is often described as a love-hate relationship (Shin & Cameron, 2003b). The antagonistic climate between these two parties has been widely studied and supported (Aronoff, 1975a; 1975b; Brody, 1984; Jo & Kim, 2004; Pincus, Rimmer, Rayfield & Cropp, 1993; Sallot, Steinfatt, & Salwen, 1998; Shin & Cameron 2003a, 2003b, 2005; Swartz, 1983). This adversarial relationship of journalists and public relations practitioners has existed almost as long as the two occupations (Ryan & Martinson, 1984). The news media play a role in framing how people perceive the world by determining not only how news will be featured but also how it will be defined. Selected news has more chances to be exposed to the public through the media than un-selected news. As a result, the news selected by media is considered more noticeable, important and memorable to the audiences (Yioutas & Segvic, 2003). In this respect, public relations also affects the media’s agenda setting process through advocating their organizations’ agendas; public relations practitioners try to use the media as a tool for communicating with their target publics (Cameron, Sallot, & Curtin, 1997; Curtin, 1999; Hallahan, 1999). Previous study suggests that from 25% to 80% of news stories were influenced by either public relations practitioners’ subsidies or contacts with public relations practitioners (Cameron et a1., 1997). This result clearly shows that public relations practitioners meaningfully contribute to setting the agenda for the media and the public (Sallot & Johnson, 2006). If public relations practitioners offer appropriate information that is worthwhile as news contents, then the final news products are influenced by public relations practitioners’ perspectives on media relation and news selection (Gandy, 1982; Manning, 2001). However, journalists ofien refuse to or are reluctant to admit their dependency on public relations practitioners’ subsidies because they want to demonstrate their objectivity and the independence of the news producing process (Gandy, 1982; Shoemaker, 1989). Aronoff (1975b) found that news editors in Texas perceived public relations practitioners more negative than public relations practitioners perceived themselves. Adopting the research theme from Aronoft’s (1975b) work, Jeffers (1977) found that journalists considered public relations practitioners as “obstructionists” who prevent journalists from achieving truthful information and accessing desired organizational sources. Similarly, Kopenhaver, Matinson, and Ryan (1984) found that news editors have more negative perceptions toward public relations than public relations perceive the editors had. Responding to journalists’ negative perspectives toward public relations practitioners, practitioners stress that journalists have self-righteous attitude towards their own occupation, and actually do not have enough knowledge about public relations (Kopenhaver, 1984). - Variables that affect the relationship between journalists and public relations practitioners Ethics. An important theme of literature regarding relationships between journalists and public relations practitioners is that the conflict is based on the ethical issues. As Beltz, Talbottt, & Stark (1984) remarked, journalists perceived that public relations practitioners tend to compromise, hide agendas and refuse to give information to them. Moreover, j oumalists think that public relation practitioners are unethical because they try to influence the independency of the journalists’ news selection process for their organizations’ sake (Candy, 1982; Shoemaker, 1989). Also, journalists believe they defend the public’s ‘right to know’. Therefore, journalists are weary of public relations practitioners’ advocacy role (Sallot et a1., 1998). F edler and DeLorme (2002) examined the historical root of the adversary relationship between journalists and public relations practitioners, and found that journalists have contempt for public relations practitioners. Journalists believed that public relations practitioners often create stunts for free publicity so that such stunts prevent journalists from writing legitimate news, and threat their balanced rules for news selection. Perceptions of others and themselves. The groups differ in how they are perceived by others and themselves. “Journalists are popularly regarded as defenders of liberty, the watch dogs of the government, idealistic, on the verge of professionalism, and other generally favorable connotations, while the image of the sales-oriented, money hungry huckster continues to haunt the publicists” (Swartz, 1983, p.13). Because of journalists’ prestige self-perception, they believe they are ‘above’ public relations practitioners in both occupational and social hierarchy. However, Swartz (1983) asserted that because journalists are aware that public relations practitioners have overall better job conditions, for example, higher payment and regular working hours, they are jealous of practitioners, and some are tempted to become public relations practitioners. Skills. Swartz (1983) argued that journalists and public relations professions have similar missions and are required to have similar skills sets. More specifically, both professions require communication skills such as writing, and they have a common occupational mission—to provide the public with important information that enables them to function in the society. However, journalists complain that public relations practitioners have poor writing skills and are less professional than journalists (Delorme & Fedler, 2003). Business Pressures. McManus (1994) asserted that sometimes, news production requires compromises between profit in business and the news values that journalists pursue. Media conglomerates, which also aim to achieve high profits, do not tend to have clear boundaries between newsrooms and the business departments (Underwood, 1993). For example, sometimes journalists are required to write news stories that place certain organizations in a favorable light because the organizations place a lot of advertisements (Beltz et al., 1984). Personal relations. In public relations studies set in Asian countries, numerous scholars have found support for the assumption that informal relations influence source- media relationships. Informal relationships are important factors that influence all social interactions in Asian cultures (Hofstede, 1980; Sriramesh, Kim, & Takasaki, 1999). Sinaga and Wu (2007) found that personal connections significantly predicted Indonesian journalists’ use of press release materials provided by public relations practitioners. Shin and Cameron (2003a) examined the influences of informal relationship on news and ethical values and found different perceptions of informal relations between journalists and public relations practitioners. Although practitioners perceived great influences of informal relations on the news, journalists reported that they did not think informal relations had a significant affect on news. Although adversarial relationships between journalists and public relations practitioners were the most common findings in existing research, some studies have not found an adversarial relationship between the two professional groups. Brody (1984) argued that the antipathy between journalists and public relations practitioners is somewhat exaggerated, noting that the tradition of journalism and public relations questioning each other’s professional motives is based on ‘tradition’ not real evidences. Furthermore, Jeffers (1977) found that journalists were ambivalent in regard to their perceptions of public relations practitioners. According to this study, when journalists assessed public relations practitioners as an undifferentiated group, they tended to rate practitioners lower than themselves in both professional and status perspectives. However, when they assessed practitioners with whom they had recent contact or practitioners with whom they had recent contact, their ratings were more favorable. As noted above, a majority of previous studies have portrayed the relationship between journalists and public relations practitioners as less than positive. Existing journalist and public relations practitioner relationship related research can be placed in four major categories, research that addresses the relationship as: interdependent (Sallot, 1993); antagonistic (Cameron et a1., 1997); ambivalent (Jeffers, 1977); or somewhat exaggerated (Brody, 1984). Many studies were conducted to explicate this conflictual but inter-dependent relationship by assessing perceptions or cross perceptions of journalists and public relations practitioners. - Perceptions and cross perceptions of journalists and public relations practitioners. Beltz et a1. (1984) examined cross-perception of journalists and public relations practitioners based on role theory. Role theory has been used broadly in human behavior research. This theory asserts that human behaviors or interactions are somewhat determined by others’ expectations, rooted in a metaphor of playing a role in a drama (Beltz et a1., 1984). Using Q-methodology, journalists and public relations practitioners were asked how much they agreed on statements that describe roles for their own profession and the roles of the other group’s profession. The primary finding was that journalists and public relations practitioners differed significantly in their perspective of public relations practitioners’ role, but not joumalists’ role. This result indicated the role of public relations practitioners has intrarole conflict, which means practitioners confront varied expectations from different audiences: peers, employers, and journalists. That is, journalists’ standards are different from both peers’ and employers’ perceptions of public relations practitioners’ roles. This study concluded that such intrarole conflict is potentially problematic for public relations practitioners because it is difficult for practitioners to fulfill all standards of their peers, employers, and journalists. Similarly, Neijens and Smit (2006) examined how Dutch public relations practitioners and journalists perceive one another’s role. They categorized the roles of public relations practitioners as informing, influencing, and interacting functions, and the roles of journalists as interpretation, investigation, and information functions. This study found that public relations practitioners and journalists agreed on the importance of both occupations’ various functions. The results showed that the two professions did not have negative perception of their relationship. They concluded that although there were differences between the two professions’ perspectives in regard to their professional roles, no fundamental problems existed in their relationship. Other studies have been conducted to assess journalists’ and public relations practitioners’ perceptions and cross-perceptions on certain issues using the coorientational approach. Sallot et a]. (1998) studied the perceptions and cross-perceptions of journalists and public relations practitioners and found that both groups shared similar concepts regarding news values. However, the journalists believed there was less similarity between the two groups. What is more, there was a difference between the groups in regard to the agenda—setting role. Public relations practitioners, compared with the journalists, thought public relations practitioners played a greater role in the agenda setting process. Shin and Cameron (2003b) examined whether the traditional conflict between journalists and public relations practitioners would be improved or worsen as a result of the development of online media. In particular, the researchers found that both parties disagreed and inaccurately predicted the Opposite party’s views, in both online and offline interactions. Also the researchers found that the same conflict that occurred in offline interaction occurred in online interactions. Shin and Cameron (2005) analyzed the perceptions and cross-perceptions of public relations practitioners and journalists toward strategic conflict management and found that the source-reporter relationship was in conflict, and that both groups projected the other group’s views inaccurately. 2. Public Relations in South Korea. The culture of each society affects how organizations operate within that society (Sriramesh et a1., 1999). As Hofstede (I980) asserted, communication also influences cultures as a medium for transmission of cultural cues when human beings are acculturated as individuals of either an organization or a society. Considering the strong bonds between culture, organization and communication, scholars and public relations practitioners should acknowledge the culture in which they intend to study or practice public relations (Sriramesh et a1., 1999). Therefore, in the current study, it is important to understand how public relations operates in South Korea. Sriramesh et a]. (I 999) attempted to analyze public relations in three Asian countries, India, Japan, and South Korea. Using meta-analysis, they examined the effectiveness of J. E. Grunig’s original four models, press agentry, public information, two-way asymmetric, and two—way symmetric, in each country. The result strongly supported that the press agentry model is the most common model of public relations practiced in South Korea. Although South Korean practitioners aspired to practice the two-way symmetric communication mode], in reality, they admitted to mostly practicing the press agentry and public information models. These characteristics of public relations in South Korea can be explained by the tradition of source-media collaboration in the era of country’s dramatic development period (Kim & Hon, 1998), and the Confucianism cultural base, which is commonly found in the Eastern hemisphere. In South Korea during the 19605, public relations began to be practiced in organizations nationwide, and public relations academic research began (Choi, 1992). During the I970S, as private sectors increased exponentially, huge conglomerates, so called “chaebol”, emerged. As the effect cheabols had on the public increased, they needed to interact with publics beyond advertising (Rhee, 2002). Most public relations activities conducted by conglomerates were focused on publicity designed to defend their corporations from criticism and negative coverage (Kim, 1996; Oh, 1991). During the 1980s, however, as the political environments became democratic and many Korean corporations went global, the public relations role expanded by necessity. The 1998 Olympics, held in South Korea, served as a major impetus for the expansion of public relations as there was a large influx of global corporations entering the country (Kim, 1996) Another factor that affects the practice of public relations in Korea is Confucianism, which emphasizes hierarchical and informal human relationships, and 10 proper intrapersonal behaviors according to relations in the hierarchy. The Yi Dynasty, which ruled over Korea for over 50 decades until the early 19”1 century, adopted Confucianism as an official philosophy (Rhee, 2002). Confucianism has greatly influenced the Korean culture and continues to be pervasive in the country’s modern society. Yum (1988) defined Confucianism as a “Philosophy of human nature that considers proper human relationship as the basis of society.” The key principles of Confucianism are: The basis of society is based on unequal relationships between people; the family is the prototype of all social organizations; Virtuous behavior toward others consists of treating others as one would like to be treated oneself; virtue with regard to one’s tasks in life consists of trying to acquire skills and education, working hard, not spending more than necessary, being patient, and persevering (Hofstede & Bond, 1987). The Confucian culture affects the practices of public relations as well. The traditional standards of Confucianism, such as “Concealing myself is needed at any ,9 66 time, a metaphor is better than direct exhibition,” and “Comparison with others is had,” were applied to public relations activities in South Korea. Those standards made it difficult to practice proactive public relations activities, especially in crisis situations, because organizations tend to conceal the truth (Kim & Hon, 2001 ). Also, the South Korean public tend to have negative perceptions towards information directly from organizations because of the virtues emphasized by Confucianism. Therefore, public 11 relations professionals want to communicate with the public via indirect communication tools, primarily the media (Sriramesh et a1., 1999). This is why public relations in Korea mainly focus on media relations. Rhee (2002) attempted to learn whether the global theory of generic principles and specific applications, based on the excellence theory, could be applied to public relations practices in South Korea. That study found that adding collectivism and the dynamic elements of Confucianism would enhance public relations excellence in South Korea. The Korean culture based on Confucianism explains why a high degree of importance is placed on informal human relationships in South Korean business settings. Several research studies have focused on the importance of informal relationships in South Korean public relations practices. Jo and Kim (2004) examined informal relationships that exist in Korean media relationships and found that personal relationships were an important component of public relations practitioners and journalists establishing effective media relations. Jo and Kim (2004) developed three—factor model by exploring dimensions that determine media relations in South Korea. Those factors are, establishing personal relationship, providing monetary gifts, and the formal responsibility of public relations. Informal relationships with journalists bear critical value because practitioners often find it difficult to achieve media coverage without personal networks. Also, providing monetary gifts is strongly connected to Confucianism (Kim & Hon, 2001), which stresses loyalty to organizations’ authority and social harmony (Kincaid, I987). 12 Considering the importance of informal relationships in Korean public relations, this current study includes the fifth dimension of the relationship, face and favor, to the organization-public relationship dimensions in order to measure the relationship between South Korean public relations practitioners and journalists. 3. Organization-Public Relationship Assessment - Relationship Perspective in Public Relations In the public relations literature, the term ‘relationship’ is commonly positioned as a core concept. Cutlip, Center and Broom (1985) defined public relations as “the management function that establishes and maintains mutually beneficial relationships between an organization and the publics on whom its success or failure depends” (p.6). That is, public relations can be defined as practices for managing the relationship between organizations and their publics. In this respect, the standardized definition and ability to measure relationships are important for public relations managers and their various publics. Especially, as pressure for accountability within organization continues to increases, practitioners need to demonstrate public relations’ meaningful contribution to their organizations’ or clients’ goals (Johnson, 1994; Kirban, 1983; “Measurement Driving More Programs,” 1996). Hon and Grunig (1999) considered why public relations practitioners should have to measure relationship as an outcome. They addressed public relations practitioners’ need to have measurement techniques that answer the following broad question, “How can PR practitioners begin to pinpoint and document for senior management the overall value of public relations to the organization as a whole? (p.2)” l3 Effectiveness measurement methods commonly used in the past are no longer acceptable (Hause, 1993; Wylie & Slovacek, 1984). Hon and Grunig (1999) asserted that most measure techniques that have been conducted in the past were merely evaluating short-term outcomes. A growing number of public relations scholars and practitioners argue that the fundamental goal of public relations is to build and maintain good relationship with key publics, which will bear long-term positive outcomes. Therefore, when a goal is to evaluate public relations’ effectiveness, the core concept of public relations, which is ‘relationship,’ should be measured. Center and Jackson (1995) expressed the essence of public relations as. “The proper term for the desired outcomes of public relations practice is public relationships. An organization with effective public relations will attain positive public relationships.” - Defining Organization- Public Relationship In the past, many scholars of public relations have used the term, ‘relations’ without explaining how to measure it. Rather, they used the term ‘relations’ assuming that readers would know how to measure relationships as well as agree on the definition of the relationship. As Broom (1977) asserted, the practice is focusing on measuring, analyzing and influencing ‘public opinion’ rather than ‘relations,’ even though the definition of public relations includes terms such as relationships and mutual relations (p. 11). As public relations scholars and practitioners’ address the lack of a unified definition and measurement for the relationship concept, Ferguson (1984) defined public relationship as a new paradigm of public relations studies. Since then, public relationship studies began and have now been conducted for more than two decades. Most studies 14 focused on building theories between relationship and other possible related dependent variables such as, antecedents and outcomes of relationship (Huang, 2001) and relationship maintaining strategies (Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 1997). Exploring relationship dimensions and antecedents were done by incorporating relationship components research from other academic areas that frequently address ‘relationship’ as a central concept, such as interpersonal communication, relationship marketing, inter-organizational communication and psychotherapy. Broom et al. (1997) reviewed how the term ‘relationship’ is explicated in various fields, including interpersonal communication, psychotherapy, inter-organizational relationship and systems theory. They found that different perspectives of diverse academic fields regarding relationships resulted in various observations and conclusions. They suggested a systems theory for building public relationship theory. According to systems theorists, relatedness of elements and interdependence are the central concept of .their systems definitions. Broom et al. (1997) adopted this notion of systems theory to organization-public relationship: Therefore, attributes of those exchanges or transfers represent and define the relationship. At the level of organization-public systems, the attributes of linkages among the participants describe the relationships within the system as well as the structure of the system (p. 94). 15 Early public relations studies concerning a relationship perspective were conducted to explicate antecedents and consequences of ‘relationship’ (Broom et al, 1997; Cutlip et al., 1985). Antecedents to relationships are the causes or contingencies that have an affect on relationship formation, such as motives, perceptions, behaviors and needs (Cutlip et al., 1985, p. 213). To build a relationship between an organization and a public, the two parties need to have certain aspects in common, such as social and cultural norms, collective perceptions and expectations, needs for resources, perceptions of uncertain environment and legal necessity, which can be defined as antecedents (Broom et al., 1997). The consequences of relationships are the results of relationships that influence on both state of the goal achievement of organization, and internal and external environments (Cutlip et al., 1985, p. 213). An organization and a public anticipate certain consequences from the relationship, which include goal achievement, dependency or loss of autonomy, and routine and institutionalized behavior (Broom et al., 1997). - Exploring of Organization- Public Relationship Elements Hon and Gruni g (1999) applied the relational features that appeared in the interpersonal communication literature to the strategies for public relationship maintenance. Those include features such as, access, positivity, openness, assurance, and networking. They also identified six elements that can indicate the outcomes of long-term relationships between an organization and its key constituencies: control mutuality, trust, satisfaction, commitment, exchange relationship, and communal relationship. Jo, Hon and Brunner (2004) empirically tested the OPR elements of Hon and Grunig (1999). The 16 result showed that Hon and J. E Gruinig’s (1999) proposed six-factor model is conceptually meaningful and can be operationalized. They concluded that the model is applicable for measuring relationship between an organization and its publics. Also, the data showed each relationship factor is closely related each other. Ki and Hon (2007) explored how well managed OPR affect that public’s attitude and behavioral intention. Among Hon and Grunig’s (1999) six indexes, relationship satisfaction was the most significantly influencing factor on students’ attitudes about their university. This study also found a strong link between attitude and behavior intention. In another study, Gruni g and Huang (2000) defined four relationship dimensions based on the study of Hon and Gruni g (1999), which include trust, control mutuality, relationship satisfaction, and relationship commitment. These four dimensions formed the basic structure of the organization-public relations assessment (OPRA) scale, which they developed to measure the quality of the relationship between an organization and its publics. Later, Huang (2001) added face and favor, which represents the specific cultural characteristic of Asian countries. She found face and favor as an important relational dimension in East Asian societies, which are largely influenced by Confucianism. The OPRA scale developed by Huang (2001) has value in providing global measures as well as specific measures, which enables researchers to assess specific cultural characteristics of East Asian societies. - Dimensions of Organization-Public Relationship This current research aims to assess the relational perspective of two professional groups—journalists and public relations practitioners—in a South Korean setting. 17 Therefore, it is necessary to consider specific cultural characteristic of East Asia, in which Korea is geographically located. In this respect, the OPRA scale developed by Huang (2001) is appropriate for the current study because it includes both global measures (trust, control mutuality, relationship satisfaction, and relationship commitment) and specific relationship measure (face and favor) for East Asian settings. Trust is perceived to be an important value for organizations to maintain relationships with their publics. According to Canary and Cupach’s definition (1988), trust is “a willingness to risk oneself because the relational partner is perceives as benevolent and honest” (p.308). Parks, Heneger, and Scamahom (1996) defined trust as a belief that someone will not take advantage of one’s good intention (Yamagishi, 1986). From the perspective of marketing communication, Morgan and Hunt (1994) defined trust as, “existing when one party has confidence in an exchange partner’s reliability and integrity” (p.23). Trust is a critical concept in interpersonal relationship (Canary & Cupach, 1988) and organizational communication as well (Fitchen, Hearth, & Ressenden-Raden, 1987; Krimsky & Plough, 1988; National Research Council, 1989). Summing up the definitions of trust in a range of disciplines, Huang (2001) proposed that, “trust highlights one’s confidence in and willingness to open oneself up to fair and aboveboard dealings with one other party” (p.66). Hon and Grunig (1999) defined trust as “one party’s level of confidence in and willingness to open oneself to the other party” (p.14). They maintained that trust is so complicated that it has several underlying dimensions: integrity, dependability, and competence. Integrity is the belief that an organization treats the public fairly and justly. Dependability is the belief that an 18 organization will keep promises that it makes, and competence is- the belief that an organization has the ability to do what it promises. Trust has been recognized as one of the fundamental elements of relationships. Huang’s (1999) research supports that an organization’s execution of ethical and two— way communication can enhance trust between the organization and its key constituencies. In addition, Hon and Gruni g (1999) emphasized the importance of trust in the context of an organization’s reputation. The second dimension of relationship, control mutuality is defined as, “the degree to which partners agree about which of them should decide relational goals and behavioral routines” (Stafford & Canary, 1991; p.224) or “the degree to which parties agree on who has rightful power to influence one another” (Hon & Grunig, 1999; p. 14). ' Jo (2006) defined control mutuality as “the extent to which each party’s voice can be heard in the final outcome” (p.229). Huang (1999)’s study found that control mutuality and trust are the two major variables that can mediate the effectiveness of public relations strategies in regard to conflict resolution. This study showed that control mutuality between an organization and its publics can enhance the possibilities of finding constructive solutions for conflict situations or to achieve support from third parties. Therefore, control mutuality is very closely related to public relations practices, especially public relations’ manner of trying to be ethical and symmetrical. Building some degree of control mutuality with their public is crucial for organizations to have a positive and stable relationship with their publics (Huang, 2001). L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig, and Doizer (2002) asserted that empowerment to every member in the organization need to be distinguished from 19 possessing power over other members. From their perspective, control mutuality is empowerment to every party, including an organization, which participates in decision- making processes. Relationship satisfaction refers to the degree of satisfaction a particular public has in regard to its relationship with an organization. Hon and Grunig (1999) defined relation satisfaction as, “the extent which one party feels favorably toward the other because positive expectations about the relationship are reinforced” (p. 14). As Hendrick (1988) suggested, relationship satisfaction is one of the major variables that can assess feelings, thoughts, or behaviors in interpersonal relationships. Therefore, relation satisfaction can be measured by thought, feelings, or behaviors shared between an organization and its publics (Ferguson, 1984). In this respect, relationship satisfaction differs from control mutuality and trust as it includes cognitions, such as affection and emotion (Huang, 2001). Hon and Gruni g (1999) asserted that satisfaction occurs when one feels that benefits from the relationship exceed costs that one input, or when one feels that other party’s relationship maintenance behaviors are positive. Hon and Grunig (1999) defined relationship commitment as, “the extent to which one party believes and feels that the relationship is worth spending energy to maintain and promote” (p.14), and Moorrnan, Zaltman, & Deshpande (1992) defined commitment as “an enduring desire to maintain a valued relationship” (p.93). Hon and Grunig (1999) asserted that there are two aspects of the commitment; affective commitment and continuous commitment (Hon & Gruni g, 1999). Affective commitment is an positive emotional feeling the public has toward an organization and the continuous commitment is the public’s intention to continue certain actions, such as using the products of given 20 organizations (Meyer & Allen, 1984). For example, from a marketing perspective, a commitment can be perceived as brand loyalty. These four dimensions of organization and public relationship are based on the Western literature. Huang (2001) added another dimension “face and favor (mianzi and renqing).” Huang (2001) explained/ace and favor as “maintaining face or doing a face- work in front of others is important in social interactions, especially for expanding or enhancing human networks” (p. 69). Also, Kim (1996) explained face and favor as face saving works to save one’s social dignity in order to keep social respectability. The face and favor dimension originated from an Eastern relationship value. Eastern countries have a more hierarchical social structure. A high level of respect is accorded to elders and seniors. Moreover, many studies have shown that Eastern countries, as compared to Western countries, tend to be more collectivistic (Rhee, 2002; Yang, 1981; Yum, 1988). These characteristics of Eastern culture can be characterized as relationship oriented (Bond & Hwang, 1986; Hwang, 1987) or socially oriented (Yang, 198]). Face and favor is a strategy that people use to acquire resources from people who allocate them and to build human networks (Hwang, 1987). A face (mianzi) strategy is another important strategy to build relationship and social networks in China. To build a close relationship, people deliberately set social interactions, take care of others with personal interactions, and behave in specific protocols that can make an attractive and powerful image, which may motivate others to build a good relationship with them (Bond & Hwang, 1986). Hwang (1987) explained that favor (renqing) can be maintained with two basic types of behaviors: 21 (l) Ordinarily, one should keep in contact with the acquaintances in one’s social networks, exchanging gifts, greetings, or visitations with them from time to time and (2) when a member of one’s reticulum gets into trouble or faces a difficult situation, one should sympathizes, offer help, and do ‘renqing’ for that person (p. 954). - How to Measure Organization-Public Relationship? Since 19803, when organization- public relationship began to be considered as a major paradigm of public relations study, many public relations scholars worked to build valid and reliable relationship measures (Kim, 2001). Most techniques developed to measure relationships focused on assessing relationship perceptions. These perceptual measures can be administered either one-way or two-way (Hon & Gruni g, 1999; Kim, 2001). However, most OPR perceptions were measured from only one party. Hon and Grunig (1999) asserted, “At some point, public relations researchers should measure relationships as seen or predicted by both parties. This evaluation would document how organizational decision makers see the relationship as well as how publics see the ' organization” (p.25). Hon and Gruni g (1999) suggested, for the future research, that the two-way measurement techniques would be helpful to assess the perceptual gap between . the two parties. Such a gap analysis will provide more insights about the relationship status, which will help public relations practitioners build strategies that can maintain and 22 or repair relationships. The two-way measure technique in public relations incorporates the coorientational model of interpersonal communication (Kim, 2001). 4. Coorientational approach The coorientational approach provides a means to analyze the perceptual balance between an organization and its publics toward certain issues, which can provide a better understanding of both parties’ beliefs, and help organizations learn more about the source of conflicts. The coorientational approach has been applied in many communication studies to assess the conflict of the source-reporter relationship. Stegall and Sanders (1986) studied the coorientation of public relations practitioners and news personnel in regard to education to assess the different perspectives on the roles of public relations practitioners and journalists in educational news fields. They found journalists’ and public relations practitioners’ relationships less adversarial than suggested by Jeffers (1977). Sallot et al. (1998) also used the coorientation model to examine the perception and cross-perception; the results showed that journalists and practitioners had similar perceptions regarding news values. However, the results showed journalists’ lack of awareness of that similarity. Shin and Cameron (2003a; 2003b; 2005) also applied the coorientational approach to assess agreement and congruency between joumalists’ and public relations practitioners’ perceptions on diverse issues. Shin and Cameron (2003a) assessed public relations practitioners’ and joumalists’ perceptions of the influences of informal relations on the news and how each group perceived the ethics of informal relations. The two 23 groups showed significantly different perceptions regarding the influence of informal relations on the news, and the ethics of informal relations that existed between them. Practitioners as compared to the journalists perceived greater influence of informal relations on news coverage contents. Also, practitioners perceived informal relations as more ethical or acceptable in practice than did the journalists. In addition, Shin and Cameron (2003b) studied the conflict between public relations practitioners’ and joumalists’ perspectives regarding the potential of online media, and found that both groups disagreed and inaccurately predicted the other’s views. However, respondents in both groups predicted less conflict of source-reporter relationship in an online environment. Furthermore, Shin and Cameron (2005) also used the coorientational approach to examine public relations practitioners’ and journalists’ different views toward strategic conflict management. The results exhibited the “mixed views” of the two groups on dimensions of “conflict” and “strategy.” Both professions failed to agree and failed to predict the other’s perceptions accurately. The coorientation model begins with the notion that the organization-public relationship is affected by what the organization and the public knows and thinks about the related issue and each other’s perception regarding the issue. That is, the level of the public’s knowledge about the organization and the related issue affects the relationship between the organization and its public. Likewise, an organization’s knowledge about its publics and the issue at hand affects the relationship between the organization and the public. Similarly, how individuals inside the organization and the public estimate what the other side thinks about the related issue also has an affect on the organization- public relationship (Broom & Doizer, 1990). Therefore, in order to manage the organization- 24 public relationship effectively, organizations should audit not only their publics’ perceptions but also their own perceptions (Broom & Doizer, 1990). Broom (1977) offered four questions to assess cross perceptions for a public relations audit: 1. What are the organization’s views on the issue? 2. What is the dominant view within the organization of the public’s views? 3. What are the public’s actual views on the issue? 4. What is the dominant view within the public of the organization’s views? The answers to these questions make it possible to measure three variables of the coorientational approach: agreement, accuracy, and perceived agreement as illustrated in Figure l (McLeod & Chaffee, 1973). Figure l. The coorientational model (McLeod & Chaffee, 1973) What the 6 > What the target organization Agreement public thinks thinks about an about an issue issue A A Perceived Perceived Agreement Accuracy Accuracy Agreement W V What the public What the. thinks the organization organization thinks the Agreement thinks about the public thinks I 3 issue about the issue ‘ 7 25 Agreement shows how two parties actually agree on a certain issue, and accuracy signifies the extent to which one side’s estimation is similar to the other side’s actual view of the issue. Perceived agreement indicates the extent to which estimations of the other’s view is congruent with their own views (Broom & Doizer, 1990). Seltzer (2006) suggested measuring the organization-public relationship using the coorientational model and attempted to establish a model (Figure 2) to evaluate the organization-public relations in integration by including both parties (organization and public) using the organization-public relationship scale developed by Hon and Grunig (1999). The model proposed by Seltzer (2006) is applied to the framework for the current study. Figure 2. The coorientational model of relationship (adopted from study of Broom & Doizer,1990) (Seltzer, 2006) Organization’s < > Public’s view view of OPR Agreement of OPR /\ /\ Perceived Perceived Agreement Accuracy Accuracy Agreement V V . . , Public’s estimate 0 O - t' . _ , . A reement rganrza ion 3 Public s View 1 g A view of OPR 26 III. HYPOTHESES The basic question of this study is, ‘How do South Korean public relations practitioners and journalists differ in their perceptions of their relationship?’ Existing research indicates that a gap exists between public relations practitioners’ and journalists’ perceptions and that of the two groups journalists perceive the gap to be larger. In order to examine this phenomenon in a South Korean setting, the following hypotheses are posed (see Figure 3): H1: PR practitioners and journalists will disagree on their relationship quality. H2: Both professions will inaccurately estimate the other’s own perceptions of relationship quality. H2a: Journalists will inaccurately estimate PR practitioners’ perceptions of their relationship quality. H2b: PR practitioners will inaccurately estimate joumalists’ perceptions of their relationship quality. H2c: PR practitioners will estimate more accurately what journalists think about their relationship than journalists will estimate what PR practitioners think about their relationship H3: Both professions’ perceptions will not be congruent with their estimations of the other’s perceptions of their relationship quality. H3a: PR practitioners’ perception of the relationship quality will not be congruent with their projections of journalists’ perception. 27 H3b: Joumalists’ perception of the relationship quality will not be congruent with their projections of PR practitioners’ perception. Figure 3. The framework of the research H1: Agree > What the PR 7 What the practitioners journalists think about J- think about J- PR relationship PR relationship H3a: Perceived A H2a: Accurate H2b: Accurate /\ H3b: Perceived agreement agreement W W What the PR What the journalists practitioners think think the PR the journalists practitioners think think about J-PR about J-PR relationship relationship IV. METHOD Survey methodology is used in this study. Systematic random sampling was administered to maximize reliability. The current study’s analysis method replicated the Shin and Cameron (2003a)’s research method, which used the coorientation model to examine perceptions and cross-perceptions of the informal relationship that exists between public relations practitioners and journalists. This study, using coorientational analysis method, examined South Korean journalists’ and practitioners’ perceptions and cross-perceptions of their relationship. 28 - Independent and Dependent Variables This study examined South Korean public relations practitioners’ and journalists’ self-perceptions and cross-perceptions on five relational dimensions developed by Huang (2001), and examined the extend of agreement, accuracy, and congruency of the two groups’ relational perceptions. Therefore, the professions (public relations practitioners or journalists) each respondent belong to are the independent variables, while the degrees of agreement, accuracy, and congruency of the two professions’ perceptions drawn from the coorientational analyses are the dependent variables. - Scale The OPRA scale, a cross—cultural and multiple item scale, developed by Huang (2001) to measure organization-public relationships, is used in this study. The scale consists of five relationship dimensions: trust, control mutuality, relationship satisfaction, relationship commitment, and face and favor. Existing research (Jo & Kim, 2004; Kim, 1996; Oh, 1991; Rhee, 2002; Yum, 1988) supports that South Korean culture and business are largely relationship and socially oriented based on the country’s Confucianism foundation. Therefore, measuring the personal relationship between Korean public relations practitioners and journalists will provide insight regarding the importance and influence of personal relationships on the source-reporter relationship. Therefore, the face and favor component of OPRA scale is of value in the current study. The initial OPRA scale has high validity and reliability (Huang, 2001; See Appendix I). - Development of Questionnaire 29 The questionnaires for this study applied OPRA items developed by Huang (2001) to measure the relationship between public relations practitioners and journalists. The relationship measure questions are divided into two parts; one is to assess the respondents’ perceptions and the other is to assess respondents’ projection of the opposite group’s perceptions (See Appendix 2). For example, an item designed to measure joumalists’ perception of ‘trust’ will appear twice in the first part and the second part as follows: - Public relations practitioners are truthful with us. - I think that public relations practitioners think journalists are truthful with them. Each question used a seven-point Likert-type scale, where one is ‘strongly disagree’, and seven is ‘strongly agree’. In addition to the relationship-based questions, demographic variables, including gender, education, organization size, type of the organization, and years of experience were included. The questionnaires were translated into Korean by the researcher, and pretested with six Koreans: two public relations practitioners, two journalists, and two students who are studying in unrelated fields, to test whether the translated questionnaire was understood clearly. - Survey Method The survey population included public relations practitioners and journalists working in South Korea at the time of the survey. Public relations practitioners who are 30 employed in both corporate and agency settings were included as were journalists employed in both the print and electronic media. A members’ list of the Korea Public Relations Association (KPRA: www.koreapr.org) for public relations practitioners and the Korea Press Foundation (KPF: www.kpf.or.kr ) for journalists were used to generate the systematic sample. From those lists, 6,000 public relations practitioners’ and 3,000 of journalists’ email addresses were generated. More email addresses of public relations practitioners were eventually collected and used because the KPRA list also included students and scholars who are either studying or are interested in public relations. An online web survey program provided by a private company, ‘SurveyMonkey (www.5urvevmonkev.com)’ was used. This site provides user-fiiendly survey tools that facilitate online web surveys, which provided a means to build web questionnaires professionally and collect data automatically. Moreover, the web survey provided easy access and navigation for respondents. Emails that contained a description of the study and the online survey page URL were sent from December 2006 to March 2007. - Respondents Table 1 shows demographic variables of respondents of this research. Of the 250 usable responses, 121 were public relations practitioners and 129 were journalists. Of the 120 public relations practitioners who participated in the survey, the percentage of females was higher than males (female: 52.1% / male: 47.1%). However, the majority of journalists who responded to the survey were male (female: 20.9% / male: 79.1%). Traditionally the journalist profession has been male-dominated in South Korea. 31 In re 7ard to or anization t c, 63.3% of ractitioners worked for co orations’ t: g YP P rP public relations teams and 34% worked for public relations agencies. Of the journalists, 53.5% were employed as newspaper journalists and 34.9% were employed by broadcasting companies. All respondents of both groups have at least a college degree, and 25.6% of practitioners, and 31.0% of journalists have master’s degrees. Also, four journalists and one practitioner reported having Ph.D. degrees. Table 1. Respondents’ demographic variables PR Practitioners . Journalists Variables Frequency Percent Frequency Percent 57 47.1 Male 102 79.1 63 52.1 Female 27 20.9 77 63.6 Inhouse Newspaper 69 53.5 34 28.1 Agency Broadcast 45 34.9 2 1.7 Ad agency Magazine . 2 1.6 Online 8 6.2 7 5.8 Other Other 5 3.9 87 71.9 College 82 63.6 31 25.6 Master 40 31.0 1 .8 Ph.D. 4 3.1 1 .8 Other 1 .8 <0rg.Size- #ofemployees> 24 19.8 ~20 6 4.7 14 11.6 20~50 10 7.8 12 9.9 50~100 12 9.3 11 9.1 100~200 13 10.1 20 16.5 200~500 43 33.3 39 32.2 500~ 45 34.9 < Year of experience> 21 17.4 ~2 3 2.3 35 28.9 2~5 24 18.6 34 28.1 5~10 42 32.6 19 15.7 10~15 38 29.5 7 5.8 15~20 15 1 1.6 3 2.5 20~ 7 5.4 32 — Reliability Means and reliability scales (Cronbach’s alpha) are summarized in Table 2 and Table 3. For the items of the self-perceptions of public relations practitioners, the values of Cronbach’s alpha for trust, control mutuality, relationship satisfaction, relationship commitment, and face and favor are .72, .59, .48, .64, .73, and for the items of the public relations practitioners’ estimations, the values of Cronbach’s alpha for trust, control mutuality, relationship satisfaction, relationship commitment, and face and favor are .75, .53, .67, .68, .81, respectively. Also, for the items of the self—perceptions of journalists, the values of Cronbach’s alpha for trust, control mutuality, relationship satisfaction, relationship commitment, and face and favor are .64, .55, .62, .56, .55, and for the items of joumalists’ estimations, the values of Cronbach’s alpha for trust, control mutuality, relationship satisfaction, relationship commitment, and face and favor are .75, .59, .47, .62, .76, respectively. Reliability scales of some constructs are high enough, but some others are not. Possible causes of the reliability problems will be discussed in the limitations section. 33 Table 2. Mean and reliability of each variable (PR practitioners) PR ’s self-perceptions PR ’s estimations menszon Variable M SD a Variable M SD or Name Name Trust PRJtruthful 3.79 1.21 PRJEtruthful 3.65 1 .22 PRJjust 3.31 1.26 PRJ Ejust 3.69 1.17 PRJtrust 3.89 1.39 PRJ Etrust 4.24 1 .27 PRJpromis 3.89 1.25 PRJEpromis 4.75 1.12 Overall M 3.72 .72 4.08 .75 Control PRJsatiswo 3.74 1.07 PRJEsatiswo 4.37 1.10 Mutuality PRJequal 2.52 1.22 PRJEequal 3.20 1.38 PRJmutual 4.78. 1.09 PRJEmutual 4.37 1.05 PRszmm 5.60 1.26 PRJ Esymm 4.72 1.32 Overall M 4.17 .59 4.17 .53 Relationship PRJ need 4.84 1 .34 PRJEneed 4.74 1 .20 Satisfaction PRJ probrel 3.75 1 .35 PRJEprobrel 4.71 1 .02 PRJsatisfy 3.65 1.15 PRJEsatisfy 4.41 1.01 PRJrelation 4.40 .98 PRJEreIation 4.40 .95 Overall M 4.17 .48 4.57 .67 Relationship PRJcontirel 4.40 1 .75 PRJ Econtirel 4.84 1 .45 commitment PRJmainrel 6.15 .93 PRJEmainrel 5.11 1.27 PRJIongrela 5.90 1.17 PRJEIongrela 4.89 1.15 PRJinteract 4.88 1.58 PRJEinteract 4.61 1 .36 Overall M 5.33 .64 4.86 .68 Face and PRJperson 4.83 1.24 PRJEperson 4.73 1.36 Favor PRJfavor 3.92 1 .27 PRJ Efavor 5.38 1 .24 PRJface 4.03 1.25 PRJ Eface 5.21 1.21 PRJIoseface 3.07 1.16 PRJE'gsefac 5.24 1.25 Overall M 3.96 .73 5.15 .81 34 Table 3. Mean and reliability of each variable (Journalists) Journalists ’ self-perceptions Journalists 's estimations Dimenswn Variable M SD a Variable M SD or Name Name Trust JPRtruthful 3.44 1.14 JPREtruthful 3.18 1.14 JPRjust 2.87 1.20 JPREjust 3.21 1.16 JPRtrust 4.13 1.15 JPREtrust 3.58 1.36 JPRpromis 4.77 1.22 JPREpromis 3.65 1.31 Overall M 3.80 .64 3.41 .75 Control JPRsatiswo 3.83 .99 JPREsatiswo 3.52 1.08 Mutuality JPRequaI 2.50 1.10 JPREequal 2.74 1.20 JPRmutual 4.24 1.22 JPREmutual 3.97 1.07 JPRsymm 5.00 1.01 JPREsymm 4.82 1.26 Overall M 3.89 .55 3.76 .59 Relationship JPRneed 4.16 1.23 JPREneed 4.52 1.18 Satisfaction JPRprobrel 4.29 1.14 JPREprobrel 4.24 1.22 JPRsatisfy 3.77 1.20 JPREsatisfy 3.55 1.11 JPRrelation 4.35 .99 JPRErelation 4.04 1.05 Overall M 4.14 .62 4.09 .47 Relationship JPRcontirel 4.75 1.43 JPREcontirel 4.00 1.63 commitment J PRmainreI 5.24 1.06 JPREmainrel 5.60 1.17 JPRlongrela 4.57 1.31 JPRElongrela 5.08 1.33 JPRinteract 4.23 1.47 JPREinteract 4.12 1.46 Overall M 4.70 .56 4.70 .62 Face and JPRperson 5.05 1.21 JPREperson 4.95 1.15 Favor JPRfavor 4.68 1 .03 JPREfavor 4.52 1 .08 JPRface 4.59 1.09 JPREface 4.43 .96 JPRIoseface 4.10 1.32 JPREfsefac 3.96 1.15 Overall M 4.61 .55 4.47 .76 V. RESULTS - Self-perceptions of public relations practitioners and journalists The results indicated that both professions have somewhat neutral perceptions of their relationships. Both groups’ overall relationship perception scores, which are the means of all the dimensions’ means, were 4.27 for practitioners and 4.22 for journalists. Also, most of mean scores of dimensions were in the range of three to five, except the 35 score of public relations practitioners’ score for relationship commitment (M = 5.33). Both groups rated the dimension of relationship commitment most positively (M of PR= 5.33/ M ofJ = 4.70), and the dimension oftrust most negatively (M of PR= 3.72/ M of] = 3.80). Table 4. Self-perceptions of public relations practitioners and journalists . . M77” 0fP,R Mean ofjournalists' Dimension practitioners self- . . self-perception perception Trust 3.72 3.80 Control Mutuality 4.17 3.89 Relationship Satisfaction 4.17 4.14 Relationship Commitment 5.33 4.70 Face and Favor 3.96 4.61 Overall Relationship 4.27 4.22 - Agreement To assess the agreement between practitioners’ and journalists’ perceptions of their relationship, between-subject tests (independent sample t-test) were conducted. Every analysis used this study performed the Bonferroni corrections, in order to avoid spurious positives that occur when several independent or dependent t-tests are performed simultaneously (Weisstein, 2004). The alpha values were divided into five, the number of the tests conducted at the same time. Therefore, this study used .01 for the alpha value. Table 4 exhibits the means of practitioners’ and journalists’ self-perceptions of each dimension and overall relational perception. The overall perception is the mean of scores of all dimensions. The overall relationship perceptions were not significantly different (t(248)= .66, n.s), which means was not supported. However, the comparison of two groups’ self-perceptions in each dimension revealed disagreements. Trust: Both professions perceived the quality of trust most negatively (M of PR = 3.72 / M of J = 3.80) among relationship dimensions, and there was no significant difference in the trust dimension (t(248) = - .68, as). This result indicates that public relations practitioners and journalists do not trust each other at a similar level. Control Mutuality: Public relations practitioners and journalists showed different perspectives on control mutuality (t(248 )= 3.02, p < .01). Both groups had somewhat neutral perspectives (M of PR = 4.17 / M of J = 3.88), and practitioners rated slightly higher on control mutuality than journalists. Although the reliability scores of the control mutuality dimensions of practitioners’ and journalists’ self-perceptions are low (Cronbach’s a of PR = .59 / Cronbach’s a of J = .55), the result reveals significant difference between the two professions in their perspectives regarding control mutuality. Relationship Satisfaction: It cannot be concluded from this result that the two professions agree on the relationship satisfaction quality because the reliability scores of both groups’ self-perceptions on relationship satisfaction are low as well (Cronbach’s a of PR= .48 / Cronbach’s a of J: .62). Therefore, this result cannot be reported as explaining the two groups’ agreement on relationship satisfaction. Relationship Commitment: Both groups perceived the relationship commitment dimension most positively (M of PR = 5.33 / M of Journalists = 4.70), but they did not agree on the level of relationship commitment quality (t(248) = 5.50, p < .001). Although the reliability scores of both groups’ self-perceptions on relationship commitment are low (Cronbach’s a of PR = .64 / Cronbach’s a of J = .56), the result was significant. 37 Face and Favor: The two groups reported the biggest difference in regard to the face and favor dimension (t(234.04 ) = -6.07, p < .001 ). Journalists as compared to public relations practitioners were more positive regarding the face and favor dimension (M of PR = 3.96 / M ofJoumalists = 4.61). Table 5. Agreement Mean of PR Mean of Dimension practitioners’ journalists ’ Mean t- Sig. sel/l seif- Differences values (2-tailed) perception perception Trust 3.72 3.80 -0.08 -O.68 .495 Control Mutuality 4.17 3.88 0.29 3.02 .003 Re'?"°”§“'p 4.17 4.14 0.03 0.34 .733 Satisfaction Re'at'9"$“'p 5.33 4.70 0.64 5.50 .000 Commitment Face and Favor 3.96 4.61 -0.64 -6.07 .000 over?" . 4.27 4.22 0.05 0.66 .509 Relationship - Accuracy To measure the accuracy of each group’s estimation of the other group’s perception on their relationship, between-subject tests (independent sample t-test) were conducted. The results supported the related hypotheses, and . However, was not supported. 38 Table 6 shows the comparisons of each group’s self-perceptions and estimations of their counterpart’s self-perceptions. This comparison shows how accurately each group estimated their counterpart’s perceptions. Overall, public relations practitioners thought that journalists would perceive the relationship with practitioners better than the journalists actually did (M of PR practitioners’ estimation = 4.55 vs. M of J’ self-perception: 4.22, t(248) = 4.41, p < .001). Journalists estimated practitioners’ self perceptions more negative than what practitioners’ actually perceive (M of J’ estimation = 4.08 vs. M of PR’ self-perception = 4.27, t(248) = -2.64,p < .01 ). The mean differences (PR = .33/ J = -.l9) between estimation of counterpart’s perceptions and counterpart’s real perceptions shows that journalists estimated practitioners’ perceptions more accurately than practitioners estimated journalists’. Trust: Both groups failed to estimate accurately their counterpart’s actual perceptions on the trust dimensions (M of PR’s estimations = 4.09, M of J’s perceptions = 3.80, t(248) = 2.7l,p <.01/, M ofJ’s estimations = 3.41, M ofPR’s perceptions = 3.72, t(246.48) = - 2.61 ,p < .01). Control Mutuality: Both professions did not estimate accurately their counterpart’s self—perceptions of the control mutuality dimension (M of PR’s estimations = 4.15, M ofJ’s perceptions = 3.88, t(248) = 2.79,p < .01/ , M ofJ’s estimations = 3.77, M of PR’s perceptions = 4.17, t(248) = -4.l3,p < .001). Relationship Satisfaction: For the relationship satisfaction dimension, the public relations practitioners fail to estimate the joumalists’ self-perceptions accurately (M of PR’s estimations = 4.55, M ofJ’s perceptions = 4.14, t(248) = 4.20,p < .001). Although 39 there was no significant difference between joumalists’ estimations and practitioners’ self-perceptions (t(248)= - .83, n.s), this result cannot conclude that journalists estimated practitioners’ perceptions accurately because the reliability of this dimension is low (Cronbach’s a of J’s estimation = .47 / Cronbach’s a of PR’s self-perception = .48). Relationship Commitment: There was significant difference between joumalists’ estimations and practitioners’ self-perceptions (M of J’s estimations = 4.67, M of PR’s perceptions = 5.33, t(248) = -5.39, p < .001). However, practitioners’ estimations were not significantly different from joumalists’ perceptions (M of PR’s estimations = 4.84, M ofJ’s perceptions = 4.70, t(248) = 1.25, n.s). Face and Favor: Both professions did not estimate the other group’s perceptions accurately in regard to the face and favor (M of PR’s estimations = 5.15, M of J’s perceptions = 4.61, t(222.86) = 4.77,p < .001 / M ofJ’s estimations = 4.46, M of PR’s perceptions = 3.96, t(248) = 4.54, p < .001). 40 Table 6. Accuracy Mean of PR 'oji/Ir‘iib’liztfs , Mean ’_ “$25 Dimension practitioners ' j l ’ Differe . estimation self- nces values tailed ’ perception ) Accuracy of Trust 4.09 3.80 0.29 2.71 .007 PR Control Mutuality 4.15 3.88 0.27 2.79 .006 Prac‘iliomrs’ Re'?"°”sfh’p 4.55 4.14 0.41 4.20 .000 estimations Satisfaction Egflfiflflfit 4.84 4.70 0.14 1.25 .124 Face and Favor 5.15 4.61 0.54 4.77 .000 gzfifinship 4.55 4.22 0.33 4.41 .000 or strait. ,- Dimension journalists ' p Differe . estimation self- nces values tailed ’ perception ) Trust 3.41 3.72 -0.31 -2.61 .010 Accuralcy of Control Mutuality 3.77 4.17 -0.40 -4.13 .000 iournaistS’ Relationshi estimation, Satisfaction" 4.09 4.17 -0.08 -0.83 .410 Egfifiifi‘e'rfi’t 4.57 5.33 -0.55 -5.39 .000 Face and Favor 4.46 3.96 0.50 4.54 .000 Overall Relationship 4.08 4.27 -O.19 -2.64 .009 - Congruency Table 7 shows how each group of journalists and public relations practitioners shows congruency between self-perceptions and estimations of other group’s perceptions. To compare mean of each group’s self perceptions and estimation, within-subject tests (paired sample t-test) were conducted. The results supported related hypotheses; and . 41 The results of within-subject tests showed that each group estimated the other group’s perceptions differently from their own perceptions (M of PR’s self-perception = 4.17, M of PR’s estimation = 4.55, t(l20)=-4.54, p< .001 M ofJ’s self-perception = 4.22, M ofJ’s estimation = 4.08 / t(128)=3.02,p< .01). Trust: Both professions estimated the other group’s perceptions would be incongruent with their own perceptions in regard to the trust dimension. Practitioners estimated journalists’ perceptions more positive than their own perceptions, and journalists estimated practitioners’ perceptions more negatively. (M of PR’s self- perception = 3.72, M of PR’s estimation = 4.09, t(120)=-4.18,p< .001 / M ofJ’s self- perception = 3.80, M ofJ’s estimation = 3.41 /t(128)=5.28,p< .001). Control Mutuality: Both groups’ estimations of the other’s perceptions were not significantly different from their own perceptions (PR: t(120)=. 31, n.s / J: t(120)= 1.78, n.s). However, it cannot be concluded that each group estimated other group’s perception congruently with their own perception in regard to the control mutuality dimension, because the reliability scores of this dimension are low (Cronbach’s a of PR’s self- perception = .59, Cronbach’s a of PR’s estimation = .53 / Cronbach’s a of J’s self- perception - .54, Cronbach’s a of J’s estimation = .59). Relationship Satisfaction: For this dimension, practitioners’ estimations of journalists’ perceptions were significantly different from practitioners’ self-perceptions. Practitioners estimated joumalists’ perception of relationship satisfaction more positively than their own perceptions (M of PR’s self—perception = 4.17, M of PR’s estimation = 4.55, t(120) = -4.l4, p < .001). On the other hand, there was no significant difference between journalists’ estimations and their own perceptions (t(120) = .64, n.s). However, 42 the reliability scores of relationship satisfaction dimension is low as well (Cronbach’s a of J’s self-perception = .62, Cronbach’s a of J’s estimation = .47). Relationship Commitment: Public relations practitioners estimated that journalists were less committed in their relationship than were the practitioners (M of PR’s self-perception = 5.33, M of PR’s estimation = 4.84), t(120) = 4.07, p < .001). However, there was no significant difference in joumalists’ estimation and their own perceptions (t(120) = .24), but the reliability scores for relationship commitment dimension was low as well (Cronbach’s a of J’s self-perception = .56, Cronbach’s a of J’s estimation = .62) Face and Favor: For the face and face dimension, public relations practitioners had incongruent estimations of journalists’ perceptions with their own perceptions. Practitioners estimated journalists’ perceptions of this dimension more positively than practitioners’ own perceptions (M of PR’s self perception = 3.96, M of PR’s estimation: 5.15, t(120) = -10.99, p < .001). However, the results did not show a significant difference in journalists’ estimations of practitioners’ perceptions and their own perceptions (t(120) = 1.80, n.s). 43 Table 7. Congruency Mean of PR . . , Mean of PR Mean Sig. . . practitioners . . , . t- Dimens'ion practitioners Differe . (2- self- . . values . . estimations nces tailed) perception Congruency Trust 3.72 4.09 -0.37 -4.18 0.00 of PR Control Mutuality 4.17 4.15 0.02 0.31 0.75 Practitioner!“ Re'ationsmp 4 17 4 55 -0 38 -4 14 0 00 perceptions Satisfaction ' ' ' ' ‘ Egfimj‘g'st 5.33 4.84 0.49 4.07 0.00 Face and Favor 3.96 5.15 -1.18 -10.99 0.00 gzg'ltfignship 4.17 4.55 -0.35 4.54 0.00 . Mean of Mean of Sig. . . journalists . . . Mean 1- Dimensron self- journalists D iffere values (2- . estimations ’ tailed) perception nces Congruency Trust 3.80 3.41 0.39 5.28 .000 of Control Mutuality 3.88 3.77 0.11 1.78 .078 JournalistS’ Re'amnsmp 4 14 4 09 0 04 ' 0 54 524 3:313:35 4.70 4.57 0.02 0.24 .808 Face and Favor 4.61 4.46 0.15 1.80 .074 gggfignshfl) 4.22 4.08 0.14 ‘ 3.02 .003 - Summary of the results In this study I examined South Korean public relations practitioners’ and journalists’ perceptions and cross—perceptions regarding their relationships. Previous studies indicated that coorientation analysis is useful when the goal is to examine whether two groups have consensus or conflict regarding given issues. Examining coorientation of the two groups’ perceptions and cross-perceptions towards their relationship enlightens not only the status of their relationship, but also the source of conflicts. Agreement. Overall, the two professions’ self-perceptions regarding their relationship 44 quality were not significantly different. Both groups perceived their relationship quality as neutral. However, they disagreed on the dimensions of control mutuality and relationship commitment, face and favor. For the control mutuality and relationship commitment, public relations practitioners rated higher than journalist did. However, journalists perceived face and favor dimension more positive than practitioners perceived. Accuracy. Both parties failed to estimate their counterpart’s perceptions accurately. Public relations practitioners estimated journalists’ perceptions more favorably than journalists’ self—perceptions, and journalists estimated practitioners’ perceptions lower than what practitioners actually perceived. Moreover, in contrast to journalists estimated more accurately public relations practitioners’ perceptions than practitioners estimated joumalists’ perceptions. Public relations people estimated journalists’ perceptions higher than what journalists actually perceive the dimensions of trust, control mutuality, relationship satisfaction, and face and favor. Also, journalists estimated practitioners’ perceptions lower than practitioners’ actual perceptions in the areas of trust, control mutuality, and relationship commitment. However, for the face and favor dimension, journalists, compared with the practitioners, rated higher their estimation of practitioners’ perceptions than practitioners’ self perception on that dimension. Congruency. Both professions have incongruent estimations of other professions’ 45 perceptions with their own perceptions. The discrepancy between self-perceptions and the estimations of the other group’s perception was larger in the public relations practitioners’ perceptions than joumalists’. Practitioners estimated journalists’ perceptions of trust, relationship satisfaction, and face and favor dimensions more positive than practitioners’ self-perceptions. In particular, the degree of incongruence was largest in the dimension of face and favor. Although practitioners rated negative (M = 3.96) for their own perceptions for the quality of face and favor dimension, they estimated journalists had more positive (M = 5.15) perceptions of the face and favor dimension. Also, practitioners estimated journalists’ perceptions would be more positive than practitioners’ own perceptions of trust and relationship satisfaction dimensions. However, practitioners were more committed to their relationships with journalists than journalists were. Compared to practitioners’ perceptions, journalists did not show incongruence between their own perceptions and estimations of practitioners’ perceptions. Journalists showed incongruence only in the trust dimension. That is journalists thought that the practitioners would trust more negatively than the journalists. VI. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS - The nature of the relationship between public relations practitioners and journalists Love-hate relationship. Overall, the results of this study are consistent with findings of prior research (eg. Sallot et al., 1998; Shin & Cameron, 2003a; Shin & Cameron, 2003b; Shin & Cameron, 2005) that reported journalists and public relations 46 practitioners have ‘mixed perceptions’ of their relationship. The data of joumalists’ and public relations practitioners’ self-perceptions show that both groups rated relationship commitment the highest, and trust the lowest. The results do a good job of explaining the source of the love-hate relationship. Journalists and public relations practitioners in South Korea commit themselves to their relationship because of the nature of their work relationship. This finding is consistent with prior studies (eg. Cameron et a1., 1997; Hallahan, 1999; Sallot, 1993) that found two professions’ interdependent relationship. For instance, journalists need news stories from public relations practitioners that may enable them to save a lot of time in regard to news searching. Also, practitioners want to fill the news holes with positive news about their organizations as much as possible. However, as the results show, they do not seem to trust each other as much as they depend on each other. This finding suggests that ‘Iove’ between two professions in South Korea comes from each other’s necessity to commit themselves in the relationship and ‘hate’ comes from mutual mistrust. Status Perceptions. According to the congruency analyses, both journalists and practitioners seem to have a common understanding that journalists, compared to practitioners, would perceive relationship quality higher. Practitioners rated their estimation of journalists’ perceptions higher than practitioners’ own perceptions, and journalists estimated practitioners’ perception on their relationship quality lower than journalists’ own perceptions. This congruency gap was larger in practitioners’ answers than journalists. 47 This result seems to be rooted on the asymmetric status of two occupations. According to study Sriramesh et al. (1999), most public relations in South Korea practice press agentry, which is a form of one-way asymmetric communication. This finding is consistent with existing research. Most practices of media relations in South Korea are conducted in the manner of one-way asymmetric communications. Because public relations practitioners want journalists to choose and write positive news about their organizations, practitioners keep producing press release materials, which are convenient and ready-to-use for journalists. In this relationship, public relations practitioners want something from journalists, and in this situation, practitioners are in the ‘serving’ position and journalists in the ‘being served’ position. Also, the fact that practitioners estimated journalists’ perceptions higher than journalists’ actual perceptions, and journalists estimated practitioners perceptions lower than practitioners’ actual perceptions provide insight regarding the fact that that both professions have fixed perceptions of hierarchical structure that existing between them. - Perceptions of informal relationship This study borrowed the concept of ‘face and favor’ from Huang’s (1999) study to assess journalists’ and public relations practitioners’ perceptions of their informal relationship. One of the notable findings in this current study is the large discrepancy between the groups’ perception in regard to the face and favor dimension. This result parallels Shin and Cameron’s study (2003a). This study found that South Korean journalists and public relations practitioners have significantly different views toward the influence of informal relationship on the news. 48 In the agreement analysis, the two groups exhibited the most different perceptions on the face and favor dimension. Moreover, both group failed to estimate accurately the other profession’s perceptions regarding the face and favor dimension. Both professions estimated the other group’s perceptions of face and favor higher than it actually was. More specifically, this discrepancy appeared larger for the public relations practitioners’ responses compared with the joumalists’. More specifically, the public relations practitioners estimated journalists’ perception of face and favor much higher than practitioners’ own perceptions. This result suggests that both professions have an illusion that their counterparts have more positive perception of their personal relationship than actually occurs in reality. The potential reasons practitioners have such illusions regarding face and favor can be seen in journalists’ commentaries, which follows: The relationship between journalists and public relations practitioners can be neither distant nor close. We meet each other out of our necessities. Usually, we cannot build personal relationships detached from our business relationships. In another side of this relationship, there is somewhat mutual mistrust. If we can maintain the relationship for a longtime, then the mistrust can be ameliorated. However, because the beat of each journalist is changing in a regular basis, we cannot build (informal) relationship with public relations practitioners. As this journalist pointed out, the informal relationship between public relations and journalists is built out of mutual necessities. Because journalists acknowledge the 49 intentions of practitioners’ personal relationship building efforts, journalists may not perceive the quality of face and favor as positively as public relations practitioners estimate. Also, the lack of trust between the two professions may obstruct building personal relationship between them. Another potential reason for the discrepancy in the face and favor dimension can be seen in the following joumalist’s commentary: South Korean public relations practitioners lack professionalism. Especially, senior practitioners tend to think building personal networks with journalists through frequent social gatherings (having dinners or drinks together) is most important. During recent years, some large companies are hiring journalists as their public relations managers. 1 think this phenomenon is also problematic. The perspective of this journalist provides insight regarding why journalists do not perceive the face and favor dimension as positively as public relations practitioners estimate. Journalists may think that practitioners’ efforts to build informal relationship with them are mere consequences of practitioners’ lack of professionalism. According to the joumalists’ comment, journalists may think that practitioners, who lack professionalism, rely on the personal relationship with journalists for the positive outcomes of media relations, such as positive news coverage. - A ntipathy between public relations practitioners and journalists is relaxing 50 A majority of existing literature that examines the source-reporter relationship found'the existence of an adversarial atmosphere between public relations practitioners and journalists (Brody, 1984; Jeffers, 1977; Jo & Kim, 2004; Pincus et al., 1993; Sallot et al., 1998; Swartz, 1983). However, the results of this study did not reveal an extreme antagonistic atmosphere for either public relations practitioners’ or journalists’ perceptions. Therefore, the results of this study are in line with recent studies (e.g., Neijens & Smit, 2006; Pincus et al., 1993; Shaw & White, 2004), which found matured professional relationships between journalists and practitioners replacing the relationship of animosity. Both parties responded neutrally for most dimensions. Both professions’ preference for neutral evaluations regarding their relationship may indicate a change in their relationship. A public relations practitioner noted, “In these days, the relationship between PR practitioners and journalists are becoming more rational and cooperative relationships than before.” This perspective is echoed by a journalist as followed: Until now, the source-reporter relationships have been more hierarchical than horizontal in South Korea; Journalists have been in the upper level and practitioners in the lower level. However, this hierarchical relationship is gradually breaking down in these days, and I think the relationship is changing into cooperative relationships with maintaining some tensions between them. 51 These comments indicate that the adversarial relationship between public relations practitioners and journalists seems to be relaxing. - Managerial implications for public relations practices. Whereas both professions rated most dimensions neutrally, trust is the dimension that both professions perceived most negatively. Although other relational dimensions were not perceived negatively, the fact that practitioners and journalists showed mutual mistrust signifies their problematic relationship. Considering journalists are one of the important publics of most organizations, restoring journalists’ mistrust towards public relations practitioners, who play a critical role as representatives for an organization, is very important. As Canary and Cupach (1988) stressed, trust is a fundamental element in every relationship. Without the solid basis of trust, no relationship can be secure and robust. Furthermore, the results showed that the largest perceptual gap between public relations practitioners and journalists lies in the dimension of face and favor. Both journalists and public relations practitioners estimated the other profession’s perceptions of face and favor more positively than their counterparts perceptions. Moreover, practitioners expected that journalists would perceive face and favor dimension much more positively than themselves. Considering the importance of trust for building interpersonal relationships, it is not surprising that journalists did not rate face and favor dimension as high as practitioners estimated. As one of the journalists pointed out, the mutual mistrust obstructs building informal relationship between journalists and practitioners. 52 Another reason for the discrepancy in the face and favor dimension may be partially explained by journalists’ perceptions that the public relations practitioners’ lacked professionalism. Several journalists who participated in this study pointed out public relations practitioners’ insufficient professionalism. One of journalists reported negative views toward practitioners’ concentrated efforts on the informal relationship building without showing any professionalism. This finding implies that in order to achieve the positive effects of face and favor in relationships with journalists, practitioners need to fulfill joumalists’ professional needs prior to the face and favor. VII. LIMITATION One of the critical limitations of this research is that some of the Cronbach’s alpha scores of the scales are below .70, the minimum commonly accepted reliability level. This means that the scales this study used are not internally consistent, so they may cause measurement error and noise in the results. Because of the low reliability scores for some dimensions, such as control mutuality, relationship satisfaction, and relationship commitment, it was impossible to explain the reasons for the lack of significant results in regard to these dimensions. The insignificant results can be either truly insignificant differences between the two groups or results of inconsistent measurement. Also, the overall relationship scores, which are means of all five dimensions, might possess measurement error or noise because of the low reliability scores. 53 There can be several possible reasons for the low reliability scores of the measurement; incorrect interpretation of the original scale, culture differences, or the small sample size. Another limitation of this research is that the scales used in these studies were somewhat obscure for the purpose of obtaining journalists’ and practitioners’ relational perceptions. In this study, the OPRA scales were directly applied to assess the relationship between the two professions. Perceptions on journalists or public relations practitioners may have wider spectrum than the perceptions of a given organization. As several respondents commented, the somewhat obscure and lack of specificity in some of the questions made it difficult to respond. This problem may be partially responsible for the low reliability scores of the measurement. VIII. FUTURE RESEARCH The analysis of South Korean public relations’ and joumalists’ perceptions on their relationship suggests directions of future research regarding this topic: 1. Qualitative analysis can add some important insights for understanding the nature of source-reporter relationship in South Korea. Responses provided by some of the respondents were extremely helpful in interpreting the result during data analysis. A set of in-depth interviews or focus group interviews based on the results of this study would add to the value of understanding the relationship between public relations practitioners and journalists. 54 2. This study borrowed the scales that have four dimensions based on the global value and one dimension based on the Eastern value. To understand the nature of relationship between journalists and public relations practitioners in South Korea, future research can add a dimension, which can represent a specific relational value of South Korea, such as personal relationship. Over the years, researchers often found the “personal influence” model in Asian countries’ public relations practices; the “personal influence” model explains how practitioners try to build informal relationship with key individuals in key publics, such as media, government, and activist groups (J. E. Gruni g, L. A. Grunig, Huang, Lyra, & Sriramesh, 1995), and Kim (1996) suggested that the personal influence model exists in South Korea as well. Jo (2006) added one more dimension, which is ‘personal network (yon),’ on the OPRA scale developed by Huang (2001), for measuring manufacturer-retailer relationships in South Korea. According to Jo (2006) personal networks are more likely to be decided by uncontrollable external factors such as blood ties, common hometowns, and schools whereas face and favor results from controllable relationship management. If this specific and important relational component for South Korean culture is added as a dimension on relationship assessment scales, an increased understanding of the source-reporter relationship in South Korea can be developed 3. The perceived relationship quality that journalists and public relations practitioners have may be different according to their years of experience, gender, and the type organizations they work for. Pincus et al. (1993) found editors’ different perceptions of public relations according to different departments. Likewise, journalists in different departments, for instance, journalists in charged of business section, and political section, 55 may perceive relationship with practitioners differently. Also, public relations practitioners in different organizations, such as corporations’ public relations teams, public relations agencies, and non-profit organizations, may have different perceptions of their relationships with journalists. Moreover, different perspectives in regarding to joumalists-practitioners relationship according to the different demographic variables, such as age, years of experience, status level in the organization, and gender, will add more knowledge regarding the body of the source-reporter relationship studies. 4. A comprehensive study incorporating diverse cultures around the world. The current study encompasses the Eastern cultures and values. To extend a body of knowledge on international public relations, it will be valuable to conduct the current study with journalists and public relations practitioners in the Western settings, and compare the results with those in Eastern settings. 56 APPENDICES l. Questionnaire for Public Relations Practitioners (English) 2. Questionnaire for Public Relations Practitioners (Korean) 3. Questionnaire for Journalists (English) 4. Questionnaire for Journalists (Korean) 57 1. Questionnaire for Public Relations Practitioners (English) PART A and B: Based on your personal experiences, thoughts, attitudes, and belief regarding the nature of relationships between PR practitioners and journalists, please choose the number from 1 to 7, with one (1) representing strongly disagree and seven (7) representing strongly agree, that best represents your general experience. PART. A Strongly Strongly ' A Generally Speaking... Disagree gree l. Journalists are truthful with PR practitioners. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. Journalists treat PR practitioners fairly and justly. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. PR practitioners’ relationships with journalists 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 are good. 4. Journalists and PR practitoners agree on what 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 they expect from one another. 5. PR practitioners don’t trust journalists. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. PR practitoners believe that it is worthwhile to 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 maintain relationships with journalists. 7. PR practitioners and journalists have symmetrical 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 give-and-take relationships. 8. PR practitioners’ relationships with journalists 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 are problematic. 9. Journalists keep their promises made to PR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 practitoners. 10. PR practititioners wish to maintain long lasting 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 relationships with journalists. 11. PR practitoners are satisfied with their 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 relationships with journalists. 58 12. In most instances, journalists and PR practitoners 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 have equal influences on decision making. 13. PR practitioners wish they didn’t have to interact 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 with journalists to do their jobs. 14. Working with journalists meet PR practitioners’ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 needs. 15. Given a viable alternative, PR practitioners 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 would not continue relationships with journalists. 16. Journalists and PR practitioners are satisfied with 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 their working relationships. 17. Given conflict situations, jounalists consider personal relationships they have with PR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 practitioners. 18. When PR practitioners ask favors, journalists give 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 face and render their help. 19. Incertain situations, journalists will do the face- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 work for PR practitioners. 20. Given situations of disagreement, journalists do 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 not let PR practitioners lose face. PART. B Strongly Strongly ' A Generally, I think that... D'sagm gree l. Journalists believe PR practitoners are truthful 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 with them. 2. Journalists believe PR practitoners treat 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 journalists fairly and justly. 3. Journalists believe their relationships with PR 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 practitioners is good. 4. Journalists believe they and PR practitoners 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 agree on what they expect from one another. 5. Journalists don’t trust PR practitioners. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. Journalists believe it is worthwhile to maintain 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 their relationships with PR practitioners. 59 7. Journalists believe they and PR practitioners 1 2 3 4 5 6 have symmetrical give-and—take relationships. 8. Journalists believe their relationships with PR 1 2 3 4 5 6 practitioners are problematic. 9. Journalists believe PR practitioners keep their 1 2 3 4 5 6 promises made to journalists. 10. Journalists wish to maintain long lasting 1 2 3 4 5 6 relationships with PR practitioners. 11. Journalists satisfied with their relationships with 1 2 3 4 5 6 PR practitioners. 12. In most instances, journalists believe they and PR practitoners have equal influences on decision making. 13. Journalists wish they didn’t have to interct with 1 2 3 4 5 6 with PR practitoners to do their jobs. 14. Journalists believe working with journalists meet 1 2 3 4 5 6 PR practitioners’ needs. 15. Given a viable alternative, journalists would not 1 2 3 4 5 6 continue relationships with PR practitioners. 16. Journalists are satisfied with working 1 2 3 4 5 6 relationships with PR practitioners. 17. Given conflict situations, journalists believe PR practitioners consider personal relationships they 1 2 3 4 5 6 have with jouralists. 18. Journalists believe PR practitioners give them face and render helps when journalists ask favors 1 2 3 4 5 6 to PR practitioners. 19. In certain situations, journalists believe PR 1 2 3 4 5 6 practitioners do the face-work for journalists. 20. Journalists believe PR practitioners do not let them 1 2 3 4 5 6 lose face in situations of disagreement. PART C. Finally, I would like to ask you a few questions to classify your answers. 1. What is your gender? Ell) Male [32) Female 2. Which of the following describes the type of your organization. 60 D1) ln-house PR team D2) PR agency D3) PR division in an advertising agency D4) Other, please specify: b) . How many people are there in your organization? Dl) less than 20 D2) 20-50 D3) 50-100 D4)] 00-200 D5) 200-500 D6) more than 500 Which of the following describes your highest level of education? D1) High school graduate D2) Some college D3) College graduate D4) Master’s degree D5) PhD degree D6) Other, please specify: How long have you been working in the PR field? D1) less than 2 yrs. D2) 2-5 yrs. D3) 5-10 yrs. D4) 10-15 yrs. D5) 15-20 yrs. D6) more than 20yrs. . Please include any additional comments you have. Thank you very much for your patience and participation. 61 2. Questionnaire for Public Relations Practitioners (Korean) PARTAQlB: g2 agxtfim 7IIF§21 gallon EH3 malaial emu-141121.145. ”4&0" til—$01 OlP—H £1250" £11811 1 —"r‘-F-1 7A10|01lA1 gal—91 1211111519.! 632111171151 712N111 QZlEl-t- 4‘- "é‘El-T-QME. (1) E75151 OlL—IEl’. (7) E “DH?- IL? 51’ $372- L—lEl'e'i L'l Cl. PART. A 75.151 "H5?- cninzigg warm “'4“ 3%” 1. ”Kigg giggxlioflfll Elflilfil. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. ”NEE EEEEJII-EE {5124-311 @9457“ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 L3H EFF—l. 3. ”NE-El gEElQIFEm-‘ll EHIE it}. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4.7|Il§BlEE'aE—JXFEEMENHEOHJII7|EHE‘ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a— 9.15 UFO" l:Hz'sH %9-l {Hi}. 5. gEQQIl§E7IIlii ax: PJEEL 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6.35El'éJXlEE7IXlEP—lQ—l Efil!%1lfl7lil7l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 21:13:. 651115.151. 7. gaaaxtim 7|Xl§§ §%fl ’é‘fi £25.94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EHIOII 21th 8. éi'él'étIléP—l ”Iii-3194 EHIMIE E—Ifl 71 21:1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9, 7|xl§£—’ gi'é‘QXlfi-P—lQ—I Eff-ES Ili'ci. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. SEQ‘QNi-‘c’ flit-331 1131-7-51 ‘1' {WE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +7151”! £12351. 11. SEQQXEE fill-53194 £1740" EH3" 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Eéflq. 62 12. EMS-5° 51%‘Ollkl 3251511175111 ”Ni-E 917115155 515011 9101711 5511.1 9.151115 1 57115101. 13. 55 511171155 717115 7.911 551—1155 2101711 1 919125 312 1115101. 14. 7171152191 9.155 5551151711591 555 1 5571171501. 157755119101 91015. 55 5517115 1 717115 5191 57115711.. 515 5711 9.1015101. 16. 55557115217171152591 51° 55 11.17101 1 0125 811:1. 17.5 59 55551571411 91017117171155 1 55 511-17115 11.191 71159.1 517115 31.215121 1e. 55 5:1711501 717115011711 55.1 5 31515 1111 717115 555 55711591 711155 5215101 555 1 5 210101. 19. 555 55101711 7171155 5555711591 71155 1 1555555555555. 20. 2|?_40l §célil Q [£11,7IXiE-E 529911591 71155 711711 9.1501. 1 PART.B 5&1 01711525 55151 1111... “'4” 1. 7171155 5555711501 25011711 5551015 1 5555. 2. 7171155 5551151711501 :155 556131 1 555555555555. 3, 7171155 555571152191 57171 51:12 1 5555. 4. 7171155 2521 5515115711501 711571 7115011711 7101615 91011 011111 591 51:13.1. 1 5555. 63 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 015 :15 1:1 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 7 ”WEE- SEQQIFE§ ”c‘xl Elk-EC}. 7 ”(1%??- gEEQXFEP—FP—I 3.371"! -‘r°rI| if 71il7121l11211 517—15151. ”NE-E— :55 S-EQQXFEP—M EMU} §§§ 51§§2594 Efilahj ngflC-L ”Ni-E giggfléfllgl Efllofl EMU} BIBLE 55215314. 7 ”(1&8 SEggIFS-Ol 2%OII7iI 51 91-45% II 11' CL?— 552135111}. ”IRE-E gEE‘E-JXFEI'JP—I 7115-55 ENE %X|317|§ ”PEEL ”NEE 2&1} 32993511194 £474|0|| EHI‘SH 5555. EH$-E-° QQOHA‘I, WHEE— JET—1 551551711501 94M§§§ 5551 2101M %%§ 95“ 334% @Mfiqffl QZfEHI—L ”Mg-E 95117-75122 559911531} ‘PROIXI PJ‘LEEE 31.?— 515.1111. 7|X1§~§ 52%‘37‘153194 219-71359” 759.5 é-fi-Alflql 56115.15}. 7155.1 L'—H E’JOI 911515,?l11i-8— gi‘é‘gfléP—FP—l 35W: Il-fififxl fill 920}? ZdOI EL 555555555555555555 5555. §%94 51%? {SHESFEEII 2101A1,7|x1fi.3_ gira‘gXI-‘é-OI 21%1194 11175131 .1171": 313131511 511311;}. 7|N§§ :l-E-OI EEQQNEMIHI 5%8 Rfiflg IIH Siggflé-fi- ”Mg-‘5 iflES $113104 5%?! E 33 DIP—15111151111. 7IIP%% é’é‘lfl QIQOIIH Sig‘é’fl-‘EOI 59—! iflE-E A1I$J-’1‘-7| $|§J 5515 QC}?— $115113}. 55551551531 ”IF-E94 -9l?_40| ‘E‘flilfl EH éE'é‘QN-g-E 7IX}%94 555% 211711 93% 330B} ”NE-E- $213515}. :12 PART C. URI 912; 713155 5155 55-15-31” E1 @35- i‘flxl 31%!1131—4 CL 3. 55915555915571? 13115 132101 4. 557711711 55 5591 5215 715 5 55555 5915111771? C11) MLH 5E5! E12) 53 EH§A1 U3) 35*1EH35U1 L-H 5551?; 51111 [14) 7|E1; 3. 51577171155 ZE’SIOil'i- 'i 5394 JSJEJOI 211314771? [31) 20 0| '31 DZ) 20-50 C13) 50-100 E14)100-200 D5) ZOO-500 E16) 500 0V8 4. :1‘1'5'17IHHE 01‘:- -’r‘-i"-77}Il 413% Egfifil—UJ}? 1:11) 2555 1:12) EH55 E13) 71111 1:14) til-AI» [15) 7 I E}: 5. :u‘l‘SMIIA'IE 53%”311EH “53%| JEl 9510114 51611134771? D1)2'—.fl 0|‘3l' C12) 2-5 '5 [13) 5-10 6 E14)10-15 '5. [35)15-20 '5‘! E16) 20 E! Ol’é! 6. :1 2| 57115 51% ”5%0l 912MB OPP—H E10“ HOHSQAIE. 5 5501 5915/ 5555115115. 65 3. Questionnaire for Journalists (English) PART A and B: Based on your personal experiences, thoughts, attitudes, and belief regarding the nature of relationships between PR practitioners and journalists, please choose the number from 1 to 7, with one (1) representing strongly disagree and seven (7) representing strongly agree, that best represents your general experience. PART. A Generally Speaking... 1 . 2. Strongly PR practitioners are truthful with journalists. PR practitioners treat journalists fairly and justly. Journalists’ relationships with PR practitoners are good. Journalists and PR practitoners agree on what they expect from one another. Journalists don’t trust PR practitoners. Journalists believe that it is worthwhile to maintain relationships with PR practitoners. Journalists and PR practitioners have symmetrical give-and take-relationships. J ournalists’ relationships with PR practitoners are problemetic. PR practitoners keep their promises made to journalists. 10. Journalists wish to maintain long lasting 11. relationships with PR practitioners. Journalists are satisfied with their relationships 66 Disagree 1 Strongly Agree 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 with PR practitoners. 12. J oumalists and PR practitoners have equal 1 2 influence in the decision making process. 13. Journalists wish they didn’t have to interact 1 2 with PR practitoners to do their jobs. 14. Working with PR practitoners meet 1 2 journalists’ needs. 15. Given a viable alternative, journalists would 1 2 not continue relationships with PR practitoners. l6. Journalists and PR practitioners are satisfied 1 2 with their working relationships. 17. Given conflict situations, PR practitioners consider personal relationships they have with 1 2 journalists. 18. When journalists ask favors, PR practitoners 1 2 give face and render their help. 19. PR practitoners do face-work for journalists. 1 2 20. Given situations of disagreement, PR practitoners do not let journalists lose face. 1 2 PART. B Strongly Generally, I think that... ”mgr“ 1. PR practitoners believe journalists are truthful 1 2 with them. 2. PR practitoners believe journalists treat PR 1 2 practitoners fairly and justly. 3. PR practitoners believe their relationships with 1 2 journalists are good. 4. PR practitoners believe they and journalists 1 2 agree on what they expect fi'om one another. 5. PR practitoners don’t trust journalists. 1 2 67 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 Strongly Agree 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6. PR practitoners believe it is worthwhile to maintain their relationships with journalists. 7. PR practitoners believe journalists and PR practitioners have symmetrical give-and-take relationships. 8. PR practitoners believe relationships with journalists are problemetic. 9. PR practitoners believe journalists keep their promises made to them. 10. PR practitoners wish to maintain long lasting relationships with journalists. 11. PR practitoners are satisfied with their relationships with journalists. 12. PR practitoners believe journalists and PR practitoners have equal influence in the decision making process. 13. PR practitoners wish they didn’t have to interact with journalists to do their jobs. 14. PR practitoners believe working with journalists meet PR practitioners’ needs. 15. Given a viable alternative, PR practitoners would not continue relationships with journalists. 16. PR practitoners are satisfied with their working relationships with journalists. 17. Given conflict situations, PR practitoners believe journalists will consider personal relationships they have with PR practitioners. 18. PR practitoners believe journalists will give them face and render help when they ask favors to journalists. 19. In certain situations, PR practitoners believe journalists do the face-work for PR practitioners. 20. PR practitoners believe journalists do not let them lose face in situations of disagreement. 68 ~ ~ PART C. Finally, I would like to ask you a few questions to classify your answers. 5. What is your gender? D 1) Male D2) Female 6. Which of the following describes the type of your organization? D 1) Newspaper publishing company D2) Broadcasting station D3) Magazine publishing company D4) Online news company D5) Other, please specify: 3. How many employees are there in your organization? D1) less than 20 D2) 20-50 D3) 50-100 D4)100-200 D5) ZOO-500 D6) more than 500 4. Which of the following describes your highest level of education? D1) High school graduate D2) College graduate D3) Master’s degree D4) PhD degree D5) Other, please specify: 5. What was your major? 6. How long have you been working as a journalist? D1) less than 2 yrs. D2) 2-5 yrs. D3) 5-10 yrs. D4) 10-15 yrs. D5) 15-20 yrs. D6) more than 20 yrs. 7. Please include any additional comments you may have. Thank you very much for your participation. 69 4. Questionnaire for Journalists (Korean) PARTA B: SE E‘QIliP—t ”Mg-9| Ellfloll EHEt 7H°._"51.';' §§0|Ll Q74, EHE. Ego" til-$01 ole” Elgé-Oll EH3" 1 51151 7At0|0l|H EE'BI EHiil’Slil ’éHZtP—l 7Pé.F mar—+2 2121215 #5 gates-Mg. (1) e 7.1161 Otbltt’, (2) a ‘DH-‘r’- :12 Ct” are l—tEt'flL—ICL PART. A fiat nus:- 21:21:12; mum “l4” 1"” 1. sea game-e 712%ng 2322114. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2. 52 average 7lItE§ as 3m: nu 2:1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 3. rut-em siesta—2mm 1.374171 in. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 4, 7|xtiflthQQItE-EM§7t7ltflfl$Sufi 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 @EOfl LHE'SH %9—| EH1}. 5. 7|Xl§§ S-EEl'E‘JN-fi'g‘ ”Ail PJ-E-Cl. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6. ”xii-E gEEI'EJXt'ET—lgl ENE iarxlfl 7ti|7t 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 RIF-3|"?— gait}. 7. 7|Ilfifll-Ei‘él'élxti-Efié-EEQEEEBI 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Efilloll 915i. 8. 7lItEP—t giggxtéllgl EUHIOHE 511m 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 91C}. 9. %E Et‘é‘It-E-E 7lIlEP—l94 Eff-#8 Klimt. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10. 7|fl§§ S-E'a‘élXtEP—t new an": 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 %I|3t7l§ {JEHZL 11, Nil-‘58- gEEt'étIt-EP—ti’l EtllIOll LHI‘SH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 '32:?th 70 12. Ell-$1594 étfioflki HIPS-Til 5299x153 24612643 steal 910w gear 2.422413 1 writer. 13. 7|It§—E- saaaxtem 21.2.21 2: atom 1 3:52:23 6+2 HHEJCL 14. giaamima til-$5 wags—>4 as: 1 é-fi-Alfi‘E-Et. 15. 7%13 EH atol 21:1g,7|x1§g éEEtEtIt-é—P—tel Eu": Ila-3+2 fin 3101 351:}. 16. 7124574 gagging-9..- 2521 2151a E740" mean. 17. age: age 8H§3H§E1l 2101 A1 32991t§§ 1 7|It§flt2| At’itel was want. 18. 7|It§0| 2299x501: an see 61212 m1. salaaxtg-e 7IIF§2| 2415—:— 2116104 Egg 1 e ZdOI Ct. 19. as at argon/H 5299x512 M152 ill as 1 magma has a 260m. 20. BIEIOI éflil it EH, giEl'éleEw-‘E 7|Xl§9 p—n t—I iilB-S- ZAII {DJ-55L 1 PART.B £131 Wilma; 2.975131 1111... 01:41:} 1. saaaxteemtiou 2501171 aaacm 1 aaaq. 2. gagging-e 7|It§OI 2&2 £24611 1 a 94 EHI an anti 212mm. 3. 22 gram-5% flit-33494 3217+ sum 1 saga. 4. 52 Et'élxtie 251+ 7|It§0l kl i0" 71| 1 7|EH‘3tE 7350" IZHI'FH %-9-| Etch". $242515}. 71 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 nu?- meat 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 5. éEE‘QXtE-E ”th8- ‘é’Il EJECL 6. SEQQXFE—E- 7 Ill-331M EW! i’rxlfl 7W7} 21:12 QZt‘ElCl. 7. EEQQXPE% HEP—l 7|Xl§fll94 13747} § %i‘5_t use 5591 Efilalfl éHZtEFC-t. 8. gigging-3 7|IlEP—l-‘ll EMIOII EMU} EMILE QZtEtCt. 9. sesame—e 7|Xl§0| :L-S-Oll 71| El Qt-fi-E JEl 1' EL?— @2435}. 10. giggxlié 7|Xtéflt9—I II-fi’ilfi' ENE fixl3t7li UlElCt. 11. Siggxtég 2&3} ”Him-9| ERIC" EH3“ wean. 12. Ell-7&3! anon/H, SEEHQNEE Sig-Til 7|Il-é-Ol 9|M§§§ “STEHI EIOM'I %%‘E_t 26“ 253% §Al§ltt1 $7435}. 13. SEQQXt-‘ég 7|ItéP—t gig-512E 940W 8%23 351 HtEtEl. 14. seagxtie flit-33494 215-71222. aaléénaqnaaaq. 15. 7t§€+ l1H Elol Silt-FE, 359911-33 ”Milt-9| t‘lllli Ila-3LT. fill 8&0}? ZdOI Ct. 16. éi'ét‘élxli-E 7|XtfiP—l94 21‘11751 Ellloll mean. 17. Q-S-P—l use 3H§3tEEll ‘RJOM‘I. %E%*%*Xt§% 7|Il§0| JET—Bl was ENE 134 {Hit—Tl éflztitlll. 18. Siggxlg-E liol ”Iii-Oil?“ Egg R’Eflli- EH ”Mg-E %E%*%1l%9—l iilE-Z— ’éfizlfiloi E%% E 3d Ola} éflZtEHZl. 19. gi'ét'EIXt-Eg é’git ’é‘é‘OlI/k‘l 7|Xl§0| 255-94 illE-E Ail-7H5” SHE hzi'EIE {tilt—T. QZ-littt. 20. gaetgxt-g—m 7|Xt-E9-l 9—IEOI E—‘Qilfl m1 WIFE-E Siggxléi’l iilfifi 41H 83% ZdOI at gaaan—z—e— tflZtEHZt. 72 mar c. UtIl are: 543194 era-e- ase-mast aes- '1 7m stateqct. 7. Heralg'aa—Predalblm I:I1)'.s.t 02M 8. :Hfilfillkl 531% 35.75194 ’SZISfl’SQEEIEtZd-E $9.4?JL—I77t? D1) ate—At I32) E9533 D3) 7.31M} E14) °._|EI'1'Tr it ilk} D5) 7| El: 3. ~7|3t77||41 *3l2E’5l01I'E- 3i EEQI ZlfiJOI 913L477}? D1) 20 0| 5t D2) 20-50 D3) 50-100 D4)100-200 D5) ZOO-500 D6) 500 Oléa" 4. Wfitflllk‘lf 01: $577M 313% @2116'477}? 1:31) 1%fitil E12) warm (:3) MA} D4) aw D5) 7| E}: 5. i'lé'tflllA‘I-E 7|Il§kl ité‘c'iltlxl EUR—l ElflfiL—Ifll? D1) 2 L3 0|‘5'l D2) 2-5 '5! D3) 5-10 '5 D4)10-15 El D5)15-20 '5 D6) 20 E Ola! 6. :1 2| 3N?— 14° EJSOI ‘RJEAIDJ OtEHOII ’5—101"*'*l2. 21 67.2107 1761.1: 7546! {ways}. 73 BIBLIOGRAPHY Aronoff, C. (1975a). Newspapers and practitioner differ widely on PR role. Public Relations Journal, 31, 25. Aronoff, C. (1975b). Credibility of public relations for journalists. Public Relations Review, 1, 51. Beltz, A., Talbott, A. D., & Starck, K. (1984). Cross perceptions: Journalists and public relations practitioners go eyeball to eyeball. Public Relations Review, 10, 44-45. Bond, M. H., & Hwang, K. (1986). The Social Psychology of Chinese People. In M. H. Bond (Ed.), The Psychology of Chinese People (pp. 213-266). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Brody, E. W. (1984). Antipathy exaggerated between journalism and public relations. Public Relations Review, 10, 1 1-15. Broom, G. M. (1977). Coorientational measurement of public issues. Public Relations Review, 3, 110-19. Broom, G. M., & Doizer, D.M. (1990). Using Research in public relations: Applications to program management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization-public relationships, Journal of Public Relations Research, 9, 83- 98. Cameron, G. T., Sallot, L. M., & Curtin, P. A. (1997). Public relations and the production of news critical review and thoretical fiamework. Communication Year Book, 20, 1 1 1-1 15. Canary, D. J ., & Cupach, W. R. (1988). Relational and Episodic Characteristics Associated with Conflict Tactics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 305-325. Center, A. H., & Jackson, P. (1995). Public relations practices: Management case studies and problems (5th ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Choi, Y. H. (1992). Hyun-dai PR ron Seoul, Korea: Nanarn. Curtin, P. A. (1999). Reevaluating public information subsidies: Market-driven journalism and agenda building theory and proactive. Journal of Public Relations Research 1 I, 58-91. 74 Cutlip, S. M., Center, A. H., & Broom, G. M. (1985). Eflective public relations (6th ed. ), Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. DeLorme, D. E., & Fedler, F. (2003). Journalists' hostility toward public relations: an historical analysis. Public Relations Review, 29, 99-124. Fedler, F., & DeLorme, D. E. (2002). Journalists' hostility toward public relations: An historical analysis. Annual Meeting of the AEJMC Public Relations Division. Ferguson, M. A. (1984). Building theory in Public Relations: Interorganizational Relationships. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Gainesville, FL. F itchen, J. M., Hearth, J. S., & Ressenden-Raden, J. (1987). Risk perception in community context: A case study. In B. B. Johnson & V. T. Covello (Eds), The social and cultural construction of risk (pp. 31-54). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: D. Reidel Association. Gandy, O. H. (1982). Beyond agenda setting: Information subsidies and public policy. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H. (2000). From organization effectiveness to indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship outcomes. In Ledingham, J. A., & and Bruning, S. D. (Eds), Public Relations as Relationship Management: A Relational Approach to the Study and Practice of Public Relations. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, J. E., Grunig, L. A., Huang, Y., Lyra, A., & Sriramesh, K. (1995). Models of public relations in an international setting. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7, 163-186. Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Doizer, D. M. (2002). Excellent Public Relations and Efirectice Organizations. Lawlance Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ. Hallahan, K. (1999). Seven models of framing: Implications for public relations. Journal of Public Relations Research, I I , 205-203. Hause, D. (1993). Measuring the impact of public relations: Electronic techniques improve campaign evaluation. Public Relations Journal, 49, 14-21. Hendrick, S. S. (1988). A generic measure of relational satisfaction. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50, 93-98. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. 75 Hofstede, G., & Bond, M. H. (1987). The Confucious connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 1 6, 4-21. Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public Relations. Gainsville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. Huang, Y. (1999, May). The efi’ects of public relations strategies on conflict management. Paper presented at the 49th annual conference of the International Communication Association, San Francisco. Huang, Y. (2001). OPRA: A Cross-Cultural, Multiple-Item Scale for Measuring Organization-Public Relationship. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13, 61- 90. Hwang, K. (1987). Face and favor: The Chinese power game. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 944-974. J efi‘ers, D. W. (1977). Performance expectations as a measure of relative status of news and PR people. Journalism Quarterly, 54, 299-307. J o, S. (2006). Measurement of organization-public relationships: Validation of measurement using a manufacturer-retailer relationship. Journal of Public Relations Research, 18, 225-248. Jo, S., & Kim, Y. W. (2004). Media or personal relations? Exploring media relations dimensions in South Korea. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 292-306. Jo, S., Hon, L. C., & Brunner, B. R. (2004). Organization-public relationships: Measurement validation in a university setting. Journal of Communication Management, 9, 14. Johnson, B. (1994). Prove public relations affects the bottom line. Public Relations Journal, 50, 40-41. Ki, E. J ., & Hon, L. C. (2007). Testing the linkage among the organization-public relationship and attitude and behavioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19, 1-23. Kim, Y. W. (1996). Positive and normative models of public relations and their relationship to job satisfaction among Korean public relations practitioners. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville. Kim, Y. W. (2001). Searching for the organization-public relationship: A valid and reliable instrument. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 799. 76 Kim, Y. W., & Hon, L. (1998). Craft and professional models of public relations and their relation to job satisfaction among Korean public relations practitioners. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10, 155-175. Kim, Y. W., & Hon, L. (2001). Public relations in Korea: Applying theories and exploring opportunities. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 11, 259-282. Kincaid, D. L. (1987). Communication theory: Eastern and western perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Kirban, L. (1983). Showing what we do makes a difference. Public Relations Quarterly, 28, 22-27. Kopenhaver, L. L. (1984). Local journalists teach PR students about news ethics. Journalism Educator, 39, 18. Kopenhaver, L. L., Martinson, D. L., & Ryan,R (1984). How public relations practitioners and editors in Florida view each other. Journalism Quarterly, 6 I , 860-865, 884. Krimsky, S., & Plough, A. (1988). Environmental hazards: Communicating risks as a social process. Dover, MA: Auburn House. Manning, P. (2001). News and news sources: A critical introduction Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. McManus, J. (1994). Market-driven journalism: Let the citizen beware? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Measurement driving more PR programs. (1996). PR News, 52, 1-2. McLeod, J. M., & Chaffee, S. H. (1973). Interpersonal approaches to communication research. American Behavioral Scientist, I 6, 483-88. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. (1984). Testing the Side-Best Theory of Organizational Commitment: Some Methodological Considerations Journal of Applied Psychology, 69, 373-378. Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and users of marketing research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 314-329. Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 58, 20-38. 77 National Research Council. (1989). Improving risk communication. Washington, DC: National Academy. Neijens, P. & Smit, E. (2006). Dutch public relations practitioners and journalists: Antagonists no more. Public Relations Review, 32, 232-240. Oh, D. B. (1991). PR communication gue-ron. Seoul, Korea: Nanam. Parks, C. D., Heneger, R. F., & Scamahom, S. D. (1996). Trust and reactions to messages of intent in social dilemmas. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 40, 134-151. Pincus, J. D., Rimmer, T., Rayfield, R E., & Cropp, F. (1993). Newspaper editors' perception of public relations: How business, news, and sports editors differ. Journal of Public Relations Research, 5, 27-45. Rhee, Y. (2002). Global public relations: A cross-cultural study of the excellence theory in South Korea. Journal of Public Relations Research, I 4, 159-284. Ryan, M., & Martinson, D. L. (1984). Ethical values, the flow of journalistic information and public relations persons. Journalism Quarterly, 61, 28. Sallot, L. M. (1993). On the reputation of public relations: An impression management perspective. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Florida. Sallot, L. M., & Johnson, E. A. (2006), Investigating relationships between journalists and public relations practitioners: Working together to set, frame and build the public agenda, 1991-2004. Public Relations Review, 32, 151-159. Sallot, L. M., Steinfatt, T. M., & Salwen, M. B. (1998). Journalists' and public relations practitioners' news values: perceptions and cross perceptions. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 75, 2. Seltzer. T. (2006). Measuring the impact of public relations: Using a coorientational approach to analyze the organization-public relationship. Gainsville, FL: Institute for Public Relations. Shaw, T., & White, C. (2004). Public relations and journalism educator's perceptions of media relations. Public Relations Review, 30, 493-502. Shin, J. H., & Cameron, G. T. (2003a). Informal relations: A look at personal influences in media relations. Journal of communication Management, 7, 239-253. Shin, J. H., & Cameron, G. T. (2003b). The potential of online media: A coorientational analysis of conflict between PR professionals and journalists in South Korea. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 80, 583-602. 78 Shin, J. H., & Cameron, G. T. (2005). Different sides of the same coin: mixed view of public relations practitioners and journalists for strategic conflict management. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 82, 318-338. Shoemaker, J. P. (1989). Public relations versus journalism? Comments on Turrow. American Behavioral Scientist, 33, 213-215. Sinaga, S. T., & Wu, H. D. (2007). Predicting Indonesian journalists' use of public relations-generated news material. Journalism of public relations research, I 9, 69-90. Sriramesh, K., Kim, Y. W., & Takasaki, M. (1999). Public relations in three Asian cultures: An analysis. Public Relations Review, I I , 271-92. Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type, gender and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8, 217-242. Stegall, S. K., & Sanders, K. P. ( 1986). Coorientation of PR practitioners and news personnel in education news, Journalism Quarterly, 63, 341 -47. Swartz, J. E. (1983). On the margin: Between Journalists and Publicist. Public Relations Review, 9, 11-24. Underwood, D. (1993). When MBAs rule the newsroom. New York: Columbia University Press. Weisstein, E. W. (2004). Bonferroni correction. From Math World--A Wolfi-am Web Resource. Retrieved April 5, 2007, from http://mathworld.wolfiamcom/BonferroniCorrectionhtml. Wylie, F. W., & Slovacek, S. P. (1984). Public relations evaluation: Myth, option, or necessity? Public Relations Review, 10, 22-27. Yamagishi, T. (1986). The provision of sanctioning system as a public good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 110-116. Yang, K. (1981). Social orientation and individual modernity among Chinese students in Taiwan. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1 13, 159-70. Yioutas, J ., & Segvic, I. (2003). Revisiting the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal: The convergence of agenda-setting and framing Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 247-259. 79 Yum, J. O. (1988). The impact of Confucianism on interpersonal relationships and communication patterns in east Asia. Communication Monographs, 55, 374-388. 80 ulilifllfilflfllltflflifliflll«le