Corporate Image as an Impression Formation Process: Prioritizing Personal, Organizational, and Environmental Audience Factors

Williams, Sheryl L.; Moffitt, Mary Anne

doi:10.1207/s1532754xjprr0904_01

Cited by 103 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The next step is to examine the relationships proposed above, which will provide empirical evidence for the theories of ' anything a company does and says has an impact on its identity ' s perception ' , 3,47 that is, corporate image and ' corporate image is inherently a composite product of company-driven and noncompany driven communication ' 23 and companycontrolled communication is more infl uential than noncompany driven communication in the long run. 48 We believe that further empirical testing of the propositions above could be a starting point for senior company management to formulate the appropriate corporate identity and corporate communication strategies towards consumers by referring to the CIM elements that are specifi ed in the background. This could help organisations use resources for communication more effi ciently.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate communications, identity and image: A research agenda

Karaosmanoğlu

Melewar

2006

J Brand Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper focuses on the importance of corporate identity mix and unplanned (uncontrolled) communication elements in corporate image formation. It aims to define the scope of the communicators of corporate identity in the consumers' context. It presents a literature review with highlights on corporate identity management and corporate communication fields. Subsequently, the paper posits several propositions for future empirical testin

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Corporate communications, identity and image: A research agenda

Karaosmanoğlu

Melewar

2006

J Brand Manag

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They point out that, independently of the signals or messages emanating from an institution, it is most likely that different stakeholders groups generate different images, as they use different criteria when evaluating organizational communication (Williams and Moffitt 1997;Arpan et al 2003).…”

Section: Image Construct Measurementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding university image: a structural equation model approach

Duarte

Alves

Raposo

2009

Int Rev Public Nonprofit Mark

103

128

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the last years, institutional image management has become a critical element to the competitiveness of higher education institutions. The aims of this study are to review the organizational image construct; explore the process of image formation and analyze the impact of the different source factors on university's image. A sample of 1024 university student was surveyed to test a conceptual model of university image formation trough structural equations. The results show that, nevertheless all factors being significant to image formation, the university social life atmosphere and employment opportunities are the most important predictors. As a result, this study is important for researchers and practitioners, as it presents a different approach to image measurement, it provides a new framework to assess university image formation and, at the same time, helps managers to understand that educational related factors aren't the only ones where they should focus to successful differentiate their institutions and remain competitive.

show abstract

“…Grunig (1993) and Williams and Moffitt (1997) affirm that image is the instant impression an evaluator acquires of a given firm, whereas reputation is based on perceptions obtained in previous interactions and it emerges slowly as a whole evaluation. Similarly, Cornelissen and Thorpe (2002) argue that images become manifest from the interaction among the evaluated agents' behavior and the evaluator's perception at a given time.…”

Section: Content Domain Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 88%

Opportunism by cheating and its effects on industry profitability. The CIOPS model

Biggiero

Sevi

2009

Comput Math Organ Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

CIOPS (Cognitive Inter-organizational Production System) is an agentbased model that integrates industry structural aspects and agents' cognitive characteristics. A demand-driven industry, whose profitability depends on the quality of suppliers' products, is represented by a three-stage vertically integrated industry. Four types of decision-making patterns are analyzed and confronted each other: from the simplest one (random choice) to the most complex one, which includes direct and indirect experience and reputation. They operate as selection devices supporting agents to select the best suppliers. Requiring agents' communication, indirect experience and reputation could be influenced by eventual opportunist behaviors. As the disturbing effect of falsity depends also on the size of decision and information space, the CIOPS model simulates different situations. Even though submitted to some restrictive assumptions, by testing five groups of hypotheses CIOPS model enables to fix many points that could be tested by empirical data and further developed by relaxing the assumptions. Results show that, especially in presence of reputation-based trust, cheating attitude severely damages industry profitability and the enlargement of information space dramatically strengthens the negative effects. Though indirect experience and reputation-based trust are powerful tools to improve industry profitability, when people cheat they dramatically reverses its effects. A sharp performance diversity is also evidenced between industry segments, because firms in the first tiers segment, who are also the suppliers of final producers, perform much better and more efficiently than final producers. Though industry size growth determines the negative url: www.knownetlab.it 192 L. Biggiero, E. Sevi effect of reducing performance, it produces the positive effect of shortening the time to reach the highest profitability and to stabilize it. Finally, it is also demonstrated that cheating half times determines almost the same negative impact of cheating always.

show abstract

Corporate Image as an Impression Formation Process: Prioritizing Personal, Organizational, and Environmental Audience Factors

Cited by 103 publications

References 9 publications

Corporate communications, identity and image: A research agenda

Corporate communications, identity and image: A research agenda

Understanding university image: a structural equation model approach

Opportunism by cheating and its effects on industry profitability. The CIOPS model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About