The value of public relations: Different impacts of communal and exchange relationships on perceptions and communicative behavior

Kim, Jarim; Sung, Minjung

doi:10.1080/1062726x.2016.1191014

Cited by 32 publications

(48 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Numerous public relations researchers have explored the nature of communal and exchange relationships and its implications in diverse settings, including university–student relationships (Hon & Brunner, 2002; Jo et al, 2005; Ki & Hon, 2007; J. Kim & Sung, 2016), organization–employee relationships (H.-S. Kim, 2007; Y.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several scholars have attempted to explore the two relationship types in online settings (Jo & Kim, 2003; Kelleher & Miller, 2006; Park & Reber, 2008; Reber & Kim, 2006). Most studies emphasize that both relationships are necessary for organizations (Grunig, 2000; Hon & Grunig, 1999; Hung, 2005) but the different effects of these relationship types on public outcomes have been noted (H.-S. Kim, 2007; J. Kim & Sung, 2016).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hung (2005) also noted that for an organization, a communal relationship often occurs in combination with an exchange relationship. Notably, several studies have demonstrated that both communal and exchange relationships, in fact, lead to positive perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors by publics (J. Kim & Sung, 2016; Y.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The two current typological concepts of communal and exchange relationships thus need additional explication to reflect their complicated nature. Second, as many researchers have already suggested (Hon & Brunner, 2002; Jo, 2006; Ki & Hon, 2007; J. Kim & Sung, 2016), measurement elaboration is necessary to understand the types of relationships and to address a lack of valid and reliable measurement scales for OPR types in the field.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

On Evolving Nature of Relationship by Perspective Mutuality: Reconceptualizing Relationship Typology Between Organization and Its Publics

Lee

Kim

2020

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To address conceptual and methodological issues regarding the exchange–communal relationship typology in public relations scholarship, this study reconceptualizes and validates three relationship types—egoistic, provident, and communal relationships. Two distinct relationship perspectives, organization-oriented and public-oriented, are also explored. The results of the two studies, focusing on an organization’s respective relationships with internal (i.e., employees) and external (i.e., consumers) publics, demonstrate the construct reliability and validity of newly conceptualized relationship types. The association between relationship types and relationship quality—trust, control mutuality, commitment, and satisfaction—is examined with structural equation modeling (SEM) and each path of two studies was compared through multigroup analysis. Theoretical and practical implications for public relations disciplines are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On Evolving Nature of Relationship by Perspective Mutuality: Reconceptualizing Relationship Typology Between Organization and Its Publics

Lee

Kim

2020

Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The majority of the studies that used the theories to study expectations addressed expectations as part of organization–public relations (e.g. Hung, 2005; Kim and Sung, 2016; Ledingham, 2003), especially in relation to social exchange theory. Some studies focused on the expectations of certain groups, such as investors (Helm, 2007) and supply chain partners (Gambetti and Giovanardi, 2013).…”

Section: Expectation Theory and Public Relations: A Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Theorizing expectations as enablers of intangible assets in public relations: Normative, predictive, and destructive

Olkkonen

Luoma‐aho

2019

Public Relations Inquiry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Expectations intersect with many areas of public relations, yet conceptual and theoretical understandings of expectations have not been strong in public relations research. In fact, expectations are often discussed at a cursory level, expectation theories are seldom applied, and the concept of expectations is not problematized. In this article, therefore, we explore the role of expectations in public relations and illustrate how expectations shape organizational relationships, particularly by enabling or destroying the creation of organizational intangible assets. We identify gaps in how expectations are addressed in public relations, present the results from a literature review of 159 academic articles, and move forward conceptually by elaborating expectations as normative, predictive, and destructive assessments. The predictive and destructive dimensions that recognize negative expectations, in particular, can help public relations scholars understand the flipside of the much more often discussed positive expectations. Fulfillment of negative expectations, for example, can explain the active maintenance of unfavorable reputations and reputational stigmas.

show abstract

Crisis perceptions, relationship, and communicative behaviors of employees: Internal public segmentation approach

Lee

2019

Public Relations Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The value of public relations: Different impacts of communal and exchange relationships on perceptions and communicative behavior

Cited by 32 publications

References 26 publications

On Evolving Nature of Relationship by Perspective Mutuality: Reconceptualizing Relationship Typology Between Organization and Its Publics

On Evolving Nature of Relationship by Perspective Mutuality: Reconceptualizing Relationship Typology Between Organization and Its Publics

Theorizing expectations as enablers of intangible assets in public relations: Normative, predictive, and destructive

Crisis perceptions, relationship, and communicative behaviors of employees: Internal public segmentation approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About