2008 PROCEEDINGS - Public Relations Society of America

More documents

Recommendations

Info

hypothetical crisis scenarios: unintentional accident, illegal activity, and product safety. This study has many of the typical limitations of survey research. Thirty–six surveys were returned. The completion rate for the three surveys varied from 29 to 36, depending on which of the strategies was examined. The instrument used a five-point scoring system. Categories ranged from highly unethical to highly ethical. Computational scoring ranged from five for highly unethical to one for highly ethical. Pragmatic saliencies of “effectiveness” and “likelihood to recommend” were scored the same way. Significant differences were calculated with analysis of variance within strategies and between scenarios. Scheffe’s multiple comparison procedure was used because of its relative conservative estimation of differences and ability to account for compound comparisons (Reinard, 2007). A limited number of demographic items (e.g., type of organization, years of experience) were added. The hypothetical nature of the company helps control for historical or perceptual moderating factors (Coombs, 2004; Dean, 2004; Kim, et al., 2004; Pfau et al., 2004). Perceptions of Effectiveness and Ethics Research questions were addressed in several ways. First, it was determined if there were any differences holistically across all scenarios and strategy. The appendix provides a breakdown of saliencies with the mean scores of strategies between scenarios. Second, data was transformed into hierarchical rankings to expose order preferences among the rhetorical strategies, similar to Wallace, Ferguson, & Chandler’s (2007) hierarchical analysis (see Table 4). Standard deviation of rankings was used as visual indicator of possible hierarchical differences. Some deviation is to be expected but rankings help to contextualize any mean differences in terms of their contribution of preference of one strategy over another. Table 4. Hierarchical Rankings of Pragmatic Image Restoration Strategies Effectiveness Likelihood Accident Illegal Activity Product Safety Accident Illegal Activity Product Safety Rank Rank rank Stdev rank rank Rank Stdev Corrective Action 1 2 1 0.58 1 1 1 0.00 Mortification 2 1 2 0.58 2 4 4 1.15 Compensation 3 3 3 0.00 3 5 5 1.15 Bolstering 4 4 4 0.00 4 2 2 1.15 Transcendence 5 5 6 0.58 5 7 6 1.00 Good intentions 6 6 5 0.58 6 3 3 1.73 Minimization 7 7 8 0.58 7 6 8 1.00 Defeasibility 8 7 7 0.58 8 8 7 0.58 Counterattack 9 10 11 1.00 9 14 12 2.52 Differentiate 10 9 8 1.00 10 9 9 0.58 Accident 11 12 10 1.00 11 11 14 1.73 Provocation 12 11 14 1.53 12 10 10 1.15 Blameshift 13 13 12 0.58 13 13 11 1.15 Silence 14 15 13 1.00 14 12 13 1.00 Deny 15 14 15 0.58 15 15 15 0.00 42
Table 5. Hierarchical Rankings of Ethical Image Restoration Strategies Ethicality Accident Illegal Activity Product Safety Rank Rank Rank Corrective Action 1 1 1 0.00 Mortification 2 2 2 0.00 Compensation 3 3 3 0.00 Bolstering 4 4 4 0.00 Transcendence 5 5 5 0.00 Good intentions 6 6 6 0.00 Minimization 7 10 7 1.73 Defeasibility 8 8 9 0.58 Counterattack 9 7 8 1.00 Differentiate 10 9 10 0.58 Accident 11 11 11 0.00 Provocation 12 12 12 0.00 Blameshift 13 13 13 0.00 Silence 14 14 14 0.00 Deny 15 15 15 0.00 Third, responses were examined for significant differences among strategies within each scenario. Of the forty-five possible combinations of scenarios against strategies, ten differences were found in six strategies (see Table 7). Concerning effectiveness (RQ 1), significant differences were found in three of the fifteen strategies: defeasibility (F=4.269, d.f. 2, 88, p≤.05), good intentions (F=5.015, d.f. 2, 88, p≤.01), and mortification (F=4.465, d.f. 2,89,p≤.05). Four strategies with significant differences emerged for likeliness to recommend (RQ 2): accident (F=4.660, d.f. 2, 86, p≤.05), good intentions (F=6.549, d.f. 2,86 , p≤.01), compensation (F=3.187, d.f. 2,86, p≤.05), and mortification (F=3.949, d.f. 2,86 , p≤.05). For ethicality, six strategies were significant: provocation (F=4.923, d.f. 2, 85, p≤.01), defeasibility (F=6.524, d.f. 2,84, p≤.01), accident (F=3.345, d.f. 2, 85, p≤.05), good intentions (F=5.228, d.f. 2,84, p≤.01), transcendence (F=3..516, d.f. 2, 83, p≤.05), and silence (F=3.193, d.f. 2, 85, p≤.05). However, the accident, transcendence, and silence strategies did not localize pair-wise between any particular scenarios. Table 6. Mean Differences Between Scenarios Effect Likely Ethical Acc. Illegal Product Acc. Illegal Product Acc. Illegal Product Defeasibility 4.36 4.52a 3.83b 3.45a 4.41bb 3.97 Good intentions 3.52 4.21a 3.31b 2.45a 3.48bb 3.32 2.83a 3.76b 3.32 Mortification 1.68a 1.24b 1.31 2.29a 1.79 1.24b Accident 3.61a 4.34b 4.62 Compensation 2.58a 2.25 1.69b Provocation 4.3a 4.72b 4.76b Different letters indicate significant differences b =p≤.05 bb =p≤.01 bbb=p≤.001 43
Page 1 and 2: 2008 PROCEEDINGS DETROIT, MICHIGAN
Page 3 and 4: Page Pedagogy Posters _____________
Page 5 and 6: RESEARCH PAPERS 5
Page 7 and 8: many researchers and professionals
Page 9 and 10: evenue, or activists provide suppor
Page 11 and 12: Results PR Effectiveness In respond
Page 13 and 14: Applied Context In answering RQ 5,
Page 15 and 16: Figure 8. Distribution of PR effect
Page 17 and 18: fifteen years, and it is now a grow
Page 19 and 20: Ni, L. (2006). Relationships as org
Page 21 and 22: Based on a review of public relatio
Page 23 and 24: Barriers to Online Course Delivery
Page 25 and 26: and “Learners are able to track a
Page 27 and 28: an excellent tool for collaboration
Page 29 and 30: audiences. Further, it is critical
Page 31 and 32: course site. Develop projects so th
Page 33 and 34: Examples of student blogs can be fo
Page 35 and 36: Technorati. Retrieved on May 15, 20
Page 37 and 38: Characteristics of Organizational o
Page 39 and 40: Table 1. Summary Definitions of Cri
Page 41: Table 3. Organizational Image Resto
Page 45 and 46: strategies public relations profess
Page 47 and 48: Stephens, K. K., Malone, P. C., & B
Page 49 and 50: Testing Crisis Response Strategies:
Page 51 and 52: example Coombs & Schmidt (2000) emp
Page 53 and 54: Table 1.0 Tactics And Examples As O
Page 55 and 56: Discussion The purpose of this rese
Page 57 and 58: Benoit, W.L. (1995b). Sears repair
Page 59 and 60: IMC and its Integration into Progra
Page 61 and 62: umbrella. This arrangement more clo
Page 63 and 64: 3B: How do institutional factors pr
Page 65 and 66: academic units. Responses were code
Page 67 and 68: RQ3A: How do institutional factors
Page 69 and 70: The lowest mean scores, ranging fro
Page 71 and 72: In this study, respondents’ perce
Page 73 and 74: At this juncture, the challenge for
Page 75 and 76: education. Journalism & Mass Commun
Page 77 and 78: However, many inside the public rel
Page 79 and 80: Core Determinants UTAUT contains fo
Page 81 and 82: H5a: Computer self-efficacy will NO
Page 83 and 84: Table 2 Descriptive Statistics for
Page 85 and 86: Although hierarchical multiple regr
Page 87 and 88: Table 8 HMR Results for Facilitatin
Page 89 and 90: use blogs. In fact, nearly 86% of r
Page 91 and 92: Venkatesh, V. (1999). Creation of f
Page 93 and 94:
What’s Guiding the Profession? An
Page 95 and 96:
process. Arnett, Arneson, and Bell
Page 97 and 98:
The interview process was guided by
Page 99 and 100:
chef’s feelings or the server’s
Page 101 and 102:
If you’re going to work with [com
Page 103 and 104:
Professionals, however, offered sev
Page 105 and 106:
Hemingway, C. A. (2005). Personal v
Page 107 and 108:
Causing Our Own Problems? Women as
Page 109 and 110:
What’s Critical About PR and New
Page 111 and 112:
• PR strategy is still developed
Page 113 and 114:
Discussion in Terms of Strategy, Et
Page 115 and 116:
How the PRSA’s Certification in E
Page 117 and 118:
1) How did the PRSA certification e
Page 119 and 120:
Frances Lilly in a similar white pa
Page 121 and 122:
Concerned that its sexual harassmen
Page 123 and 124:
All respondents agreed that e-learn
Page 125 and 126:
DL 3.0 were simple text and graphic
Page 127 and 128:
technology that we lose sight of th
Page 129 and 130:
Lowery, S. A., & DeFleur, M. L. (19
Page 131 and 132:
and student groups in research clas
Page 133 and 134:
Adoption of Participatory Adult Lea
Page 135 and 136:
all had the same instructor, the sa
Page 137 and 138:
Table 1: Thematic Analysis Results
Page 139 and 140:
Improving Feedback, Interaction and
Page 141 and 142:
will realize they all are expected
Page 143 and 144:
How to Win Friends and Impact Stude
Page 145 and 146:
6. After reviewing assignments to m
Page 147 and 148:
The pre-assessment survey results s
Page 149 and 150:
messages and she never even called
Page 151 and 152:
Who Should Teach Investor Relations
Page 153 and 154:
Relations Society of America (PRSA)
Page 155 and 156:
From Britney Spears to Burger King:
Page 157 and 158:
governmental entities. The professo
Page 159 and 160:
Show Me! Portfolios as Instruments
Page 161 and 162:
The Student. In a real sense, what
Page 163 and 164:
Gill, K. (ed.). (1993). Process and
Page 165 and 166:
Courses of Study The courses in the
Page 167 and 168:
Table 1. Cluster Comparison of Grad
Page 169 and 170:
Appendix Name________________ Semes
Page 171 and 172:
Outcome Clusters (italicized are ne
Page 173 and 174:
innovation; (2) Successful collabor
Page 175 and 176:
Breaking Ground In A Public Communi
Page 177 and 178:
O A Video Documentary O A mini-vide
Page 179 and 180:
Reflection as an Assessment Tool in
Page 181 and 182:
Creating a Multi-Layered Case Study
Page 183 and 184:
Finally in phase three of the case
Page 185 and 186:
Example 2 Online Assignment: Studen
Page 187 and 188:
New Methods of Student-to-Student a
show all

2008 PROCEEDINGS - Public Relations Society of America

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?