brand personality and opr brand personality and organizationpublic

62
Running head: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC RELATIONSHIPS: IMPACTING DIMENSIONS BY CHOOSING A TEMPERAMENT FOR COMMUNICATION A RESEARCH PAPER SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE MASTER OF ARTS IN PUBLIC RELATIONS BY DAVID J. CLEVELAND II ADVISER: MICHELLE O’MALLEY BALL STATE UNIVERSITY MUNCIE, INDIANA JULY 2016

Upload: others

Post on 11-Sep-2021

20 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

Running head: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR

BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATION­PUBLIC RELATIONSHIPS:

IMPACTING DIMENSIONS BY CHOOSING A TEMPERAMENT FOR COMMUNICATION

A RESEARCH PAPER

SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE

MASTER OF ARTS IN PUBLIC RELATIONS

BY DAVID J. CLEVELAND II

ADVISER: MICHELLE O’MALLEY

BALL STATE UNIVERSITY

MUNCIE, INDIANA

JULY 2016

Page 2: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 2

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my advisor, Michelle O’Malley, of the Department of Journalism at Ball

State University. Her knowledge and support were invaluable throughout, and she helped push

me and made sure this project was a success. She saw the value in the research and in my efforts,

and she taught me plenty—this is just as much a result of her fantastic guidance.

I would like to thank Ball State University Career Center Associate Director Brandon Bute for

his expert opinions on the topic of personality type indicators and the assistance and guidance he

provided. I would also like to thank Ball State Career Center staff members Charlie Ricker and

Eilis Wasserman as well as University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Senior Assistant Director

Camille Mason for their assistance in determining correct language.

I would like to thank my father, David Cleveland, for his support while I progressed through this

endeavor, but also for his expert advice about the psychological and type indicator realm. Your

insight and recommendations were provoking and always welcomed.

Lastly, thank you to the others that encouraged me and allowed me to use as idea sounding

boards —my mother, Cyndi Cleveland, Victoria Meldrum, and Joseph Bailey. Thank you to

Lauren Fisher for putting up with my non­stop late night research and writing sessions as well as

appreciating the constant babbling I would do to any passerby that would listen to my ideas and

findings and what it all means.

Page 3: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 3

Table of Contents

1. Purpose … 6

2. Review of Literature … 7

2.1 Organization­public relationships … 7

2.2 Two­way dialogic communications … 9

2.3 Dimensions of organization­public relationships … 10

3. Hypotheses … 12

4. Method … 13

4.1 Definitions and scales … 13

4.2 Temperament theory and type indicators … 16

4.3 Subjects … 17

4.4 Pre­test … 17

4.5 Procedure … 18

4.6 Analysis … 19

5. Results … 21

5.1 Data reduction and reliability analysis … 21

5.2 One­way ANOVA and post hoc tests … 23

5.3 Hypothesis 1 … 24

5.4 Hypothesis 2 … 25

5.5 Hypothesis 3 … 26

5.6 Hypothesis 4 … 28

Page 4: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 4

5.7 Hypothesis 5 … 29

5.8 Hypothesis 6 … 30

5.9 Hypothesis 7 … 31

5.10 Hypothesis 8 … 32

6. Discussion … 34

6.1 What does it mean? … 34

6.2 Implications … 36

6.3 Specific vernacular … 37

6.4 Tweet game should be strong … 38

6.2 Limitations and further research … 39

7. Conclusions … 40

Bibliography … 41

Appendix … 51

A. “Xentro Motors” biography and tweets … 51

B. “Finn Motor Company” biography and tweets … 53

C. “Saef” biography and tweets … 55

D. “Tossi of America” biography and tweets … 57

E. Survey questions … 59

Page 5: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 5

List of Figures

Figure 1, Intuitive­thinking tweet example … 18

Figure 2, Intuitive­feeling tweet example … 19

Figure 3, Reliability of trust questions … 21

Figure 4, Reliability of control mutuality questions … 22

Figure 5, Reliability of satisfaction questions … 23

Figure 6, Reliability of commitment questions … 23

Figure 7, ANOVA chart for all four temperament types … 24

Figure 8, Significant p values for commitment with Tukey HSD … 25

Figure 9, ANOVA comparing intuitive companies to sensing companies … 26

Figure 10, Significant p values for control mutuality with Tukey HSD … 27

Figure 11, ANOVA comparing thinking companies to feeling companies … 28

Figure 12, Significant p values for satisfaction with Tukey HSD … 29

Figure 13, ANOVA comparing thinking companies to feeling companies … 30

Figure 14, Significant p values for trust with Tukey HSD … 31

Figure 15, ANOVA comparing intuitive companies to sensing companies … 33

Figure 16, Plot of the regression factor scores of four temperaments … 35

Figure 17, Plot of the regression factor scores of related to dimensions … 37

Page 6: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 6

1. Purpose

Words matter—we all know it. They indicate descriptors and elaborate. They paint pictures and

tell stories. They represent cultures and classes and education and wisdom and so much more.

Specific words can allude to specific personalities and how an individual may think or behave.

So too, when organizations are discussed, the words associated with their everyday information

and communication can be indicative of a specific brand personality.

The purpose of this project is to determine if an organization could use small changes to its

everyday language in order to create better relationships with its publics. Organizations may not

be people, but they do have brand personalities, and by leveraging those, a positive

organization­public relationship can be had.

This study is designed to determine if brand personalities impact the strength of an

organization­public relationship (OPR). With the Myers­Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) being a

commonly used measurement for human temperament differences, it is believed that

organizations can choose to present general communication in one of these temperament styles

for positive impact. By tapping into these personality aspects, organizations and publics can have

a better understanding of each other and can see even stronger relationships develop because of

them.

Developing a brand personality can prove to be a simple yet important factor into developing

powerful relationships between organizations and their publics.

Page 7: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 7

2. Review of Literature

2.1 Organization­public relationships

Ever since Ledingham and Bruning presented their theory of organization­public relationships

for public relations (1998), the social science field has embraced the concept and devoted plenty

more research into solidifying many of the themes. According to Bruning and Ledingham, “the

relationships management perspective has the potential to serve as a platform to guide theoretical

inquiry and professional practice, and to provide a method of evaluation that is consistent with

the management approach” (p. 158). Prior to the strong call for organization­public relationships

as a management process, some scholars expressed concern that there was less attention paid to

organization­public relationships than there should have been, and many researchers were

missing out on defining them (Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 1997). However, since Ledingham and

Bruning’s public stance on the theory, organization­public relationships have been assessed and

reviewed many times over, with many more results growing from the theory.

“Relationship­building became a central issue, and various scholars have developed theories,

models, and measurement scales to analyze and define organization­public relationships”

(Avidar, 2013, p. 440). Public relations is a management perspective that focuses on

organizations and how relationships can be managed with their publics (Heath, 2013).

Organization­public relationships has now been a subject researched in a bevy of fields,

strengthening its claim as a solid public relations theory and showcasing successful research

supporting Ledingham and Bruning’s initial claims. The assortment of research on

Page 8: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 8

organization­public relationships and how it intersects with countless walks of life includes—but

is not limited to—the following: between a city and its housing residents (Bruning, Langenhop,

& Green, 2004); between a European football club, its ownership, and the community where it is

located (Coombs & Osborne, 2012); and practical uses of OPR in the military (Plowman, 2013).

Waymer discussed how relationships could be measured in a government setting, emphasizing

on OPR being not just theoretical, but practical (2013). It has even been used in art! “Only by

letting publics speak in their own terms can we begin to understand their concerns and issues,

not just their responses to our concerns and agendas” (Forernan­Wernet & Dervin, 2006, p. 293).

Using arts in experimentation methods with OPR, excellent two­way symmetrical

communication was found, and user perceptions changed in other instances (Banning & Schoen,

2007). Basically, there are instances where one can find studies of OPR everywhere.

“Organization­public relationships have been extensively examined in various contexts,

including corporate, nonprofit, government, global, and online settings” (Men, 2014, p. 261).

Organization­public relationships go beyond just studies, though. The theory has been tied to a

myriad of other public relations aspects, such as crisis responding like when Brown and White

wrote, “Maintaining positive relationships with stakeholders is more important than any

individual crisis response strategy” (2010, p. 88). It is also regularly linked to corporate social

responsibility and engagement (Devin & Lane, 2014) and even online user interfaces and

experiences (Vorvoreanu, 2006). Ivanov, Sims, and Parker argue that OPR should be considered

in full integrated marketing communications strategies, bleeding beyond just pure public

relations (2013).

Page 9: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 9

2.2 Two­way dialogic communications

OPR ties in, as well, to symmetrical communication (Bruning and Ledingham, 2000; Shen and

Kim, 2012). Not everything should be one­sided. Lee and Park explain why interactivity is so

important (2013), Kent and Taylor stress dialogue (2002), and two­way dialogic interactions are

studied extensively (Avidar, et al., 2015). “Because the ultimate goal of a public relations

program should be to build a mutually beneficial relationship with key public members, it is

important that public relations practitioners manage organization­public relationships by using a

two­way symmetrical model” (Bruning & Ledingham, 1999, p. 91).

Engaging in two­way communication is so much more important than just emphasizing the

organization’s needs—it shows a mutual understanding (Taylor & Kent, 2014). Sometimes there

are unique ways to approach dialogic aspects of communication (Forernan­Wernet & Dervin,

2006), while Twitter is becoming the staple of two­way communication (Sweetser, English, &

Fernandes, 2015) that can provide the biggest impact toward OPR dimensions. “Social media

channels… with two­way, interactive/dialogical, communal, and relational features should be

harnessed to promote employee participation, engagement, and community building” (Men,

2014, p. 274­275). Grunig may not have had Twitter when he was developing breakthrough

public relations ideas two decades ago, but he did have the foresight to put so much emphasis on

two­way symmetrical communication and how successful relationships involve mutual benefit

for both the organization and the public (1993).

Page 10: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 10

2.3 Dimensions of organization­public relationships

What aspects make up OPRs and dialogic communication, though? How can it be measured?

Hon and Grunig developed dimensions for OPR that included trust, control mutuality,

satisfaction, and commitment (1999). Further research into dimensions has proposed other

potential dimensions—Kim initially looked at 10 in 2001: trust, mutuality, commitment,

satisfaction, communal relationship, openness, community involvement, affective intimacy,

relationship termination cost, and reputation. Most, however, have helped solidify the four

primary dimensions—for instance two studies by Huang that reinforced the said dimensions

(2001a, 2001b).

Bruning and Ledingham lamented for better way to measure OPR. “Because relationships can be

difficult to measure, public relations practitioners often have struggled to demonstrate the

influence that public relations activities have on consumer perceptions, evaluations, and

behaviors” (2000, p. 85). Six years later, and there were still those calling for better

measurements. “Although many scholars and practitioners understand that mutual benefit is an

important part of public relations research and practice, measurement systems for determining

the advantages of obtaining mutual benefit have not emerged” (Bruning, DeMiglio, & Embry,

2006, p. 33). Thankfully, Ki and Hon provided plenty of research to help solidify dimensions on

which to follow (2007; 2009). In addition to their great contributions, Auger helped show the

incredible connection between the dimension of trust and transparency (2014), Ki showed

positive correlations of the dimensions in the banking industry (2013), and Moon and Rhee

emphasized the negative aspects that can be associated with dimensions (2013). “When both

Page 11: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 11

parties to an organization­public relationship are able to influence the other, an equal partnership

can develop” (Bruning, Dials, and Shirka, 2008, p. 29).

Ultimately, these dimensions help showcase the strengths of the OPR. They give it more

substance and areas on which to focus. These dimensions also show there can be different types

of relationships, dependent on other factors. “Organizations, like people, form different types of

relationships with different actors” (Yang & Taylor, 2015, p. 103).

Page 12: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 12

3. Hypotheses

After considering the potential for how brand personality types might impact the dimensions of

organization­public relationships, the following hypotheses seem reasonable.

1. “Intuitive­Feeling” (NF) organization will be more associated with commitment than the

other types.

2. Organizations with “intuition” (N) will have higher associations with commitment than

types with “sensing” (S).

3. “Intuitive­Thinking” (NT) organization will be more associated with control mutuality

than the other types.

4. Organizations with “thinking” (T) will have higher associations with control mutuality

than types with “feeling” (F).

5. “Sensing­Feeling” (SF) organization will be more associated with satisfaction than the

other types.

6. Organizations with “feeling” (F) will have higher associations with satisfaction than

types with “thinking” (T).

7. “Sensing­Thinking” (ST) organization will be more associated with trust than the other

types.

8. Organizations with “sensing” (S) will have higher associations with trust than types with

“intuition” (N).

Page 13: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 13

4. Method

This study is designed to determine if brand personalities impact the strength of an

organization­public relationship (OPR). With the Myers­Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) being a

commonly used measurement for human temperament differences, it is believed that

organizations can choose to present general communication in one of these “brand personality”

styles for positive impact. Using dimensions of OPR—trust, satisfaction, control mutuality, and

commitment, as discussed by Hon and Grunig (1999)—as indicators of positive or negative

relationships, it should be determined if there is any impact based on emulating four specific

personality types through basic organization communication.

4.1 Definitions and scales

Dimensions of OPR are chosen as representations of solid indicators for positive or negative

connections. In addition, the dimensions of trust, satisfaction, control mutuality, and commitment

will provide a solid example of scale when determining what type of connections are prevalent

amongst the personality types.

Trust relates to the confidence someone has in another. Three dimensions include integrity, “the

belief that an organization is fair and just;” dependability, “the belief that an organization will do

what it says it will do;” and competence, “the belief that an organization has the ability to do

what it says it will do” (Hon and Grunig, 1999). To measure trust, modified questions originally

posited by Hon and Grunig (1999) were used to determine how trustworthy survey recipients

Page 14: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 14

found a mock company. The following questions were asked to measure trust for a given brand

personality.

1. This organization can be relied on to keep its promises.

2. I believe this organization would take opinions of people like me into account when

making decisions.

3. I feel very confident about this organization’s skills.

4. This organization does not mislead people like me.

5. I think it is important to watch this organization closely so that it does not take advantage

of people like me. (Reversed)

Satisfaction deals with parties feeling positive toward one another because of reinforced

favorable expectations. To measure satisfaction, updated questions originally constructed by Hon

and Grunig (1999) were used to figure out how satisfactory survey recipients found a mock

company. The following questions were asked to measure satisfaction for a given brand

personality.

1. I am happy with this organization.

2. Most people like me would be happy in their interactions with this organization.

3. I feel people like me are important to this organization.

4. Both the organization and people like me benefit from the relationship.

5. The organization fails to satisfy the needs of people like me. (Reversed)

Page 15: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 15

Control mutuality revolves around how much each party can influence one another and the

agreement on that. To measure control mutuality, questions originally developed by Hon and

Grunig (1999) were modified and used to determine the level of control mutuality survey

recipients found in a mock company. The following questions were asked to measure control

mutuality for a given brand personality.

1. This organization believes the opinions of people like me are legitimate.

2. I believe people like me have influence on the decision­makers of this organization.

3. This organization and people like me are attentive to what each other say.

4. When I would have an opportunity to interact with this organization, I feel that I would

have some sense of control over the situation.

5. This organization won’t cooperate with people like me. (Reversed)

The main aspects of commitment are each party wanting to produce effort to maintain the

relationship. Hon and Grunig (1999) created questions to measure commitment that were

modified and used to discover levels of commitment survey recipients found within a mock

company. The following questions were asked to measure commitment for a given brand

personality.

1. I can see that this organization wants to maintain a relationship with people like me.

2. I would rather work together with this organization than not.

3. There is a long­lasting bond between this organization and people like me.

4. Compared to other organizations, I would value my relationship with this organization

more.

Page 16: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 16

5. I have no desire to have a relationship with this organization. (Reversed)

4.2 Temperament theory and type indicators

Within the realm of temperament theory, sensing and intuition typically focus around how

people gather information but can also project how parties prefer to produce final details. Based

opposite of each other, sensing is much more concrete and literal, playing around the five

senses—sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell—while intuition is much more abstract and

possibility­based, placing emphasis on “what if’s” more than the here and now (Jung, 1971;

Keirsey, 1984).

Thinking and feeling are used more for making decisions. When parties make certain choices,

some focus more on logic and reason—placing them into the thinking spectrum. As for feeling,

choices are made more on value systems and beliefs in what is right or wrong. These also fall

diametrically opposed to each other, with personalities leaning one way or another (Jung, 1971;

Keirsey, 1984).

The pairs of thinking/feeling and intuition/sensing were chosen for use over the other primary

type indicator preferences (introversion/extraversion and judging/perceiving) for multiple

reasons. First off, these four preferences are brought up in studies about type regularly and have

been included in personality type research since Carl Jung (1971) used elements in his archetype

research. Describing them as basic functions of the psyche, these were the bases on which his

other type research revolved. Keirsey continued with Jung’s propositions, creating the

Page 17: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 17

groundwork for many of the type indicators and temperament sorters used in abundance today

(1984). In addition to the core functional reasons, the pair of extraversion/introversion was also

left out of this study because of the need for larger swaths of communication points to accurately

denote obvious differences. As for the judging/perceiving duo, many of those temperament

preferences are based on time­sensitive aspects, creating a difficult environment to gather the

requisite responses. If hypotheses for this study are supported, both other pairs could be

considered in future research.

4.3 Subjects

Subjects were predominantly recruited from classes within Ball State University's Department of

Journalism. Assisting faculty offered five points of extra credit in exchange for subjects

participating in the study. Students were informed of the opportunity by the principal investigator

via email, with a link to the Qualtrics survey provided as well as brief information about the

investigation. Subjects then took the survey online through Qualtrics wherever was convenient

for them. All subjects were 18 years of age or older and willing participants. Participants were

able to withdraw from the survey with no consequences. In order to maximize responses,

partially finished surveys were accepted, with answered questions being included in data.

Coercion did not take place within the survey, and no potential risks were perceived.

4.4 Pre­test

For the initial pre­test, four fictitious organizations (brands) were created—each representing

different personality types from the MBTI spectrum, including intuitive­feeling (NF),

Page 18: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 18

intuitive­thinking (NT), sensing­feeling (SF), and sensing­thinking (ST). These brands were

created to closely align the communication with four MBTI types that were presented in a brief

biography and several posts on Twitter (tweets). To assure the organizations represented specific

types through their general communication, a panel of experts analyzed and confirmed the

content to accurately reflect the four temperaments.

For the pre­test, subjects reviewed the material from the four brands through a survey and

responded using a seven­point Likert scale to discover how individual brands rated amongst

dimensions of OPR. The test did not make mention of MBTI to subjects so as not to illicit

potential bias from those familiar with the type indicator. This allowed for chances to learn of

technical and comprehension difficulties to ensure the main surveys were administered

successfully.

Figure 1. Intuitive­thinking tweet example. This figure showcased one of the tweets used in the

survey representing metaphorical, yet data­driven Xentro Motors brand.

4.5 Procedure

With the four brands securely in place and the online aspects confirmed after the pretest, the

survey moved on to the majority of respondents. After filling out a consent page and reading

Page 19: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 19

about the aspects of the survey—including that each company has been created solely for the

purpose of the survey—students moved onto the main portions. This online Qualtrics survey

consisted of sections grouped by each of the four mock brands. After reviewing the materials for

an organization, respondents then answered the questions relating to OPR dimensions (trust,

satisfaction, etc.) listed in “Definitions and Scales” above. Each question had a seven­point

Likert scale response option, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree,” with a neutral

response in the center. A total of 20 questions were asked for each organization. To ensure no

response­bias, the four organizations were randomized for each individual, and the questions

relating to each organization were randomized as well. More than 80 students participated in this

survey, many of which opted to receive extra credit as an incentive.

Figure 2. Intuitive­feeling tweet example. This figure showcased one of the tweets used in the

survey representing metaphorical, yet emotion­based Finn Motor Company brand.

4.6 Analysis

Once the responses were completely gathered, a data reduction was run in order to prepare the

figures for the best analysis. A factor analysis was addressed to determine that all the figures

were meaningful and reliable in comparison to the rest of the data. The hypotheses were

measured using multiple tests to determine if they were supported. A one­way analysis of

Page 20: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 20

variance was used in order to determine if there was any gap of significance between the means

of the groups since there were both independent and dependent variables. Tukey’s honest

significance difference test was used in the post hoc test to determine where the differences

appeared amongst the brand personality type groups. Since using post hoc tests necessitates

multiple groups, it was not used to compare just thinking to feeling or sensing to intuition.

However, simple means ANOVA were still run on the pairs.

Page 21: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 21

5. Results

Ultimately, there were mixed results as to

what was expected initially compared to

what was found after the surveys. While it

was expected to have a range of brand

personalities having favorable aspects in

different areas, there instead seemed to be

clear strong types and weak types.

5.1 Data reduction and reliability analysis

The survey data was run through a data

reduction, creating scales for trust, control

mutuality, satisfaction, and commitment.

This was done in order to compare the four

dimensions of OPR for each brand personality

type against each other. As the figures were

run through a reliability analysis, an overall

Cronbach’s Alpha of .906 came back, indicating very legitimate data. Quality survey results

were further strengthened when looking to see how figures would work if answers were deleted.

Questions relating to “trust” ranged from .900 to .911 Cronbach’s Alpha, while “control

mutuality” survey questions gave the highest figure of the bunch, ranging from a .899 to .906.

Page 22: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 22

The questions that reflected “satisfaction” had

a range of .899 to .903, and questions for

“commitment” ranged from .898 to .902. Even

with the lowest question having a floor of .898

Cronbach’s Alpha, all the questions came back

incredibly reliable and relevant.

Page 23: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 23

5.2 One­way ANOVA and post hoc tests

A one­way analysis of variance was used next. Between the groups of the dimensions, all four

were determined to be significant. Satisfaction showed a significance value of .001, while trust,

control mutuality, and commitment each had values of significance of .000, respectively.

Page 24: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 24

Figure 7. ANOVA chart for all four temperament types. This figure showcased core values and

significance for the one­way analysis of variance amongst the temperaments NT, NF, SF, and

ST.

When comparing just intuition to sensing, significance was also shown across the board, with

values of .000 for trust and commitment and values of .001 for control mutuality and satisfaction.

Meanwhile, between thinking and feeling, only one dimension showed

significance—commitment, with a value of .044. The non­significant values were as follows:

.539 for trust, .373 for control mutuality, and .229 for satisfaction.

5.3 Hypothesis 1

Original hypothesis: “Intuitive­Feeling” (NF) organization will be more associated with

commitment than the other types.

Page 25: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 25

To test this hypothesis, a one­way analysis of variance was used, creating F = 13.587, df = 259,

Sig. = .000. Since a significant figure was produced using the ANOVA, a post hoc test was run,

using Tukey’s model for multiple comparisons significance. NF produced significant p values of

.002 over NT and .000 over both SF and ST. When comparing regression factor score means, NF

had the highest of .617. NT had .012, ST had ­.262, and SF had ­.340.

Figure 8. Significant p values for commitment with Tukey HSD. This figure shows mean

difference and the significance between NF and NT, NF and SF, and NF and ST.

Result: This is supported. Intuitive­feeling proved to be the strongest of the four types used—not

just in this category, but in all. It was significant with commitment in the ANOVA, and it had

significant comparisons to the other three types as well as the regression factor score mean.

5.4 Hypothesis 2

Original hypothesis: Organizations with “intuition” (N) will have higher associations

with commitment than types with “sensing” (S).

Page 26: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 26

To test this hypothesis, a one­way analysis of variance was used, creating F = 13.587, df = 259,

Sig. = .000. A significant figure was produced using the ANOVA, but a post hoc test could not

be run, as there were only two groups in intuition and sensing. However, when comparing

regression factor scores for commitment, N had a mean of .301, while S had a mean of ­.301.

Figure 9. ANOVA comparing intuitive companies to sensing companies. This figure shows the

significance between intuition and sensing for commitment.

Result: This is supported. Intuition seemed to have connotations ranging from neutral to very

positive for every dimension, but this original hypothesis stands true. A significance was

apparent in the ANOVA, and the regression factor score mean for intuition was higher than that

of sensing.

5.5 Hypothesis 3

Original hypothesis: “Intuitive­Thinking”(NT) organization will be more associated with control

mutuality than the other types.

Page 27: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 27

Figure 10. Significant p values for control mutuality with Tukey HSD. This figure shows mean

difference and the significance between NT and NF, NT and SF, and NT and ST.

To test this hypothesis, a one­way analysis of variance was used, creating F = 6.158, df = 263,

Sig. = .000. Since a significant figure was produced using the ANOVA, a post hoc test was run,

using Tukey’s model for multiple comparisons significance. NT did not produce any significant

numbers (compared to NF p = .052, to SF p = .046, to ST p = .742). When comparing regression

factor score means for control mutuality, NT had .004. NF had the highest, with .414, ST had

­.114, and SF had the lowest, with ­292.

Result: This is unsupported. While intuitive thinking brand seemed better than sensing­thinking

and sensing­feeling according to means, it was more a beneficiary of the other two being so

negative while it maintained primarily a neutral impact. It also had no significant showing at all.

Page 28: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 28

5.6 Hypothesis 4

Original hypothesis: Organizations with “thinking” (T) will have higher associations with

control mutuality than types with “feeling” (F).

To test this hypothesis, a one­way analysis of variance was used, creating F = .796, df = 263,

Sig. = .373. No significant figure was produced using the ANOVA, and a post hoc test could not

be run anyways, as there were only two groups in thinking and feeling. Also, when comparing

regression factor scores for control mutuality, T had a mean of ­.054, and F had a mean of .056.

Result: This is unsupported. The only dimension that even did seem to have significance

between thinking and feeling was in commitment, and even then, feeling surpassed thinking

anyways. Thinking was not higher rated, and no significance was found.

Figure 11. ANOVA comparing thinking companies to feeling companies. This figure shows the

significance between thinking and feeling for control mutuality.

Page 29: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 29

5.7 Hypothesis 5

Original hypothesis: “Sensing­Feeling” (SF) organization will be more associated with

satisfaction than the other types.

Figure 12. Significant p values for satisfaction with Tukey HSD. This figure shows mean

difference and the significance between SF and NT, SF and NF, and SF and ST.

To test this hypothesis, a one­way analysis of variance was used, creating F = 5.669, df = 262,

Sig. = .001. Since a significant figure was produced using the ANOVA, a post hoc test was run,

using Tukey’s model for multiple comparisons significance. SF did not produce a significant p

value for NT (.423) or ST (.951), but it did with NF at .001. However, when comparing

regression factor score means, SF had a ­.248. NF had the highest at .405, NT had ­.010, and ST

had ­.158.

Page 30: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 30

Result: While it is very associated with satisfaction and shows significance, it is a completely

negative association according to the means. Intuitive feeling had the most positive connection in

this instance. This is unsupported.

5.8 Hypothesis 6

Original hypothesis: Organizations with “feeling” (F) will have higher associations with

satisfaction than types with “thinking” (T).

To test this hypothesis, a one­way analysis of variance was used, creating F = 1.453, df = 262,

Sig. = .229. No significant figure was produced using the ANOVA, and a post hoc test could not

be run, as there were only two groups in thinking and feeling. Also, when comparing regression

factor scores for control mutuality, T had a mean of ­.073, and F had a mean of .076.

Figure 13. ANOVA comparing thinking companies to feeling companies. This figure shows the

significance between thinking and feeling for satisfaction.

Result: While feeling does rate higher than thinking for satisfaction, it is by incredibly small

amounts and is deemed insignificant. This is unsupported.

Page 31: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 31

5.9 Hypothesis 7

Original hypothesis: “Sensing­Thinking” (ST) organization will be more associated with trust

than the other types.

To test this hypothesis, a one­way analysis of variance was used, creating F = 9.296, df = 263,

Sig = .000. Since a significant figure was produced using the ANOVA, a post hoc test was run,

using Tukey’s model for multiple comparisons significance. ST produced a significant figure of

p = .003 to NF, but non­significant figures to NT and SF of p = .742 and p = .390, respectively.

When comparing regression factor score means, ST had ­.123. NF was highest with .471, while

NT had .045, and SF had the lowest, with ­.388.

Figure 14. Significant p values for trust with Tukey HSD. This figure shows mean difference

and the significance between ST and NT, ST and NF, and ST and SF.

Page 32: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 32

Result: This is unsupported. No dimension rated highest—or even second­highest—with sensing

thinking. It was consistently negative in every category, and the significance that was present

was more indicative of the strong NF.

5.10 Hypothesis 8

Original hypothesis: Organizations with “sensing” (S) will have higher associations with trust

than types with “intuition” (N).

To test this hypothesis, a one­way analysis of variance was used, creating F = 18.267, df = 263,

Sig. = .000. A significant figure was produced using the ANOVA, but a post hoc test could not

be run, as there were only two groups in intuition and sensing. However, when comparing

regression factor scores for commitment, N had a mean of .253, while S had a mean of ­.257.

Result: This is unsupported. Sensing figures were consistently low across the board—if anything,

using sensing language can only hurt. Negative figures abound, and the only significance is that

it is so opposite of NF.

Page 33: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 33

Figure 15. ANOVA comparing intuitive companies to sensing companies. This figure shows the

significance between intuition and sensing for trust.

Page 34: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 34

6. Discussion

6.1 What does it mean?

The results in this study were impressive. The sheer scale of the chasm between positive­leaning

language and negatively impactful verbiage was impressive. Language matters in a

phenomenally huge way—both positively and negatively. Within the world of sales and

marketing, language is known to matter, but this impresses just how much it matters in the most

seemingly mundane of items.

It was expected for some brand personalities to better correlate with dimensions of OPR, but

intuitive­feeling was clearly leaps and bounds better than the rest. Not only that, but everything

in the sensing realm—all the straightforward language about seeing, hearing, tangible

things—eschewed incredibly low for each and every dimension of OPR, especially for

sensing­feeling. Intuitive­thinking, meanwhile, stayed neutral almost across the board.

The implications for this on public relations as a whole are significant—practitioners need not

focus just on press releases, “official” statements, and the like, but instead they need to be

putting thought into general content in everyday conversation, especially in social media.

Page 35: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 35

Figure 16. Plot of the regression factor scores of four temperaments. This figure depicts the

differences in the NT, NF, SF, and ST temperaments and shows how similar the dimensions are

to each.

Page 36: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 36

6.2 Implications

This matters because language plays a much larger role in regular aspects. Copywriters may

create great ad campaigns, and content producers may produce plenty of clicks, but the generic

everyday aspects are just as important. One, organization decision­makers should be meeting

with communications practitioners to develop a brand personality and all the “brand speak”

(Wheeler, 2009). that goes along with it. That includes deciding what tone to take in

conversations and general pieces. In what way do you tell directions? How do you mention the

founder of an organization? What generic aspects are on the horizon? All of those previously

overlooked areas should now be able to fit with the language indicative of the brand personality.

Brand personality has been covered much in the advertising world, be it on the link with

campaigns like Dove with “actual self” models being featured (Malär, Krohmer, Hoyer, &

Nyffenegger, 2011), the visual appeal for personality (Branaghan & Hildebrand, 2011), because

of performance (Malär, Nyffenegger, Krohmer, & Hoyer, 2011), or clever gimmicks that make

up the persona (Heath & Heath, 2007). Now, however, the basic language matters so much

more—organizations should be creating a brand personality that is consistent across all areas.

Language that may have been handled half­heartedly because it just needed to fill a place should

be thought out and stay consistent with the overall theme of the organization’s brand personality.

Page 37: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 37

Figure 17. Plot of the regression factor scores of related to dimensions. This figure depicts the

how dimensions are similar and different for each of the four temperaments surveyed.

6.3 Specific vernacular

Intuitive­feeling, represented by fictitious brand Finn Motor Company, was far and away the

strongest performing brand personality type tested. It emphasized the theoretical and

Page 38: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 38

possibility­laden side of the organizations. It didn’t focus on the here and now or the sights and

sounds—instead it made references. The product did not matter, and the subjects appreciated that

en masse. In addition, the brand personality type of Finn Motor Company approached the

sensitive side of language. The biography and tweets talked more about hard­working (feeling)

instead of horsepower (thinking). It brought up subjects like Thanksgiving. Basically, it almost

went out of its way to not directly talk about the brand or its product. This is what should be

done. Metaphor and hyperbole, emotions and connections—welcome to the new brand economy.

6.4 Tweet game should be strong

Twitter is a strong medium on its own, but using it the right way—using the best language—will

be an important aspect of every practitioner going forward. Knowing how to speak for a

company’s brand should be in each practitioner’s toolbox. Basically, no language gets a day

off—it all has to be crafted specifically to maximize the relationships between the organizations

and their publics. This is should put more emphasis on organizations crafting specific

communications guidelines and determining how to “speak” in general senses all the time. By

focusing on how to craft language, it will allow more emphasis to be put elsewhere, creating

positive impact for trust, control mutuality, satisfaction, and commitment without having to

invest too much time or resources. Mention an upcoming holiday, quote a song, use an

emoji—these are ok things to do, and an organization’s publics will appreciate it for being

relatable.

Page 39: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 39

6.5 Limitations and Future Research

While this investigation proved to have great results, it could definitely use more studies going

forward. For one, the sample was limited to millennials at a Midwestern university. The sample

size could be expanded to be more thorough and to also see if there are any impacts based on age

or region. Furthermore, it would be interesting to discover the personality types indicators of

subjects while doing the research to see if there are any connections. Students that are interested

in journalism and communications majors are more likely to be of one type than others (but are

not necessarily). With that in mind, further research could shed light on if there is any

connections between a subject’s type and the types that create the most positive or negative

impact.

In addition to strengthening the sample size and discovering personality types of subjects, it

could also help to create a wider variety of brand examples. Current brands were avoided in this

study to avoid any types of biases, but with a large enough sample size, most biases could most

likely be avoided, providing similar positive and negative press coverage leading up to surveys.

Page 40: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 40

7. Conclusions

It sounds cliché, but words matter. Not only do words matter, but words can make or break a

relationship between an organization and a public before anything substantial is even started.

Before an ad actually gets a chance to pitch a product, before a spokesperson can regale a group

of investors of an organization’s merits, and before a campaign has a chance to even begin

molding perception for an issue, the most basic of semantics are of great importance.

Ultimately, many of the original hypotheses were shot down in this research. However, in

learning what was incorrect, there was a great breakthrough in what did and did not work.

Sensing­feeling absolutely tanked. Subjects wholly rejected the tangible qualities of

organizations and their products being discussed and how they related to emotions. Subjects did

not want to equate looks and status or newness with a particular smell—they instead decidedly

backed intuitive­feeling. Metaphors and hypotheticals and how they could benefit a subject’s

emotions won the day in this study. Overwhelmingly so, tying the company and product to

things that had nothing to do with its product was the way to go. Couple that with playing up

how those elements impacted emotions made intuitive­feeling the clear­cut leader in ways every

organization should have its staff writing about it in everyday speech.

Etymologists of the world will hopefully be offering their services, as plenty of organizations

could benefit from having some logophiles on retainer. The great thing is that anyone can do this,

though, so holster your thesaurus and prep your emojis—it’s about to get wordy up in here.

Page 41: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 41

Bibliography

Adamson, A. P. (2006). Brand simple. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Alford, J. (2002). Defining the client in the public sector: A social­exchange perspective. Public

Administration Review, 62(3). 337­346. Ang, S. H. & Ching Lim, E. A. (2006). The influence of metaphors and product type on brand

personality perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 35(2). 39­53. Auger, G. A. (2014). Trust me, trust me not: An experimental analysis of the effect of

transparency on organizations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(4). 325­343.

Avidar, R. (2013). The responsiveness pyramid: Embedding responsiveness and interactivity into public relations theory. Public Relations Review, 39(5). 440­450.

Avidar, R., Ariel, Y., Malka, V., & Levy, E. C. (2015). Smartphones, publics, and OPR: Do publics want to engage?. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 214­221.

Ayish, M. I. (2005). Virtual public relations in the United Arab Emirates: A case study of 20 UAE organizations’ use of the Internet. Public Relations Review, 31. 381­388.

Banning, S. A. & Schoen, M. (2007). Maximizing public relations with the organization­public

relationship scale: Measuring a public’s perception of an art museum. Public Relations Review, 33(4). 437­439.

Bents, R., & Blank, R. (2010). Understanding the dynamics of typical people: An introduction to Jungian type theory. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe Publishing.

Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). What is it? How is it measured? Does it

affect loyalty?. Journal of Marketing, 73(3). 52­68. Branaghan, R. J. & Hildebrand, E. A. (2011). Brand personality, self­congruity, and preference:

A knowledge structures approach. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10. 304­312.

Page 42: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 42

Briones, R. L., Kuch, B., Liu, B. F., & Jin, Y. (2011). Keeping up with the digital age: How the American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 37. 37­43.

Brønn, P. S. & Olson, E. L. (1999). Mapping the strategic thinking of public relations managers

in a crisis situation: An illustrative example using conjoint analysis. Public Relations Review, 25(3). 351­368.

Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of

organization­public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9. 83­98.

Brown, K. A. & White, C. L. (2010). Organization­public relationships and crisis response strategies: Impact on attribution of responsibility. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23(1). 75­92.

Bruning, S. D. (2002). Relationship building as a retention strategy: Linking relationship attitudes and satisfaction evaluations to behavioral outcomes. Public Relations Review, 28(1). 39­48.

Bruning, S. D., DeMiglio, P. A., & Embry, K. (2006). Mutual benefit as outcome indicator: Factors influencing perceptions of benefit in organization­public relationships. Public Relations Review, 32(1). 33­40

Bruning, S. D., Dials, M., & Shirka, A. (2008). Using dialogue to build organization­public relationships, engage publics, and positively affect organizational outcomes. Public Relations Review, 34(1). 25­31.

Bruning, S. D. & Galloway, T. (2003). Expanding the organization­public relationship scale: Exploring the role that structural and personal commitment play in organization­public relationships. Public Relations Review, 29. 309­319.

Bruning, S. D., Langenhop, A., & Green, K. A. (2004). Examining city­resident relationships:

Linking community relations, relationship building activities, and satisfaction evaluations. Public Relations Review, 30. 335­345

Bruning, S. D. & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics: Development of a multi­dimensional organization­public relationship scale. Public Relations Review, 25(2). 157­170.

Page 43: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 43

Bruning, S. D. & Ledingham, J. A. (2000). Perceptions of relationships and evaluations of satisfaction: An exploration of interaction. Public Relations Review, 26(1). 85­95.

Buchholz, A., & Wördemann, W. (2000). What makes brands different? The hidden meaning behind the world’s most successful brands. (J. D. Brennan, Trans.). West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Callison, C. (2003). Media relations and the Internet: How Fortune 500 company websites assist

journalists in news gathering. Public Relations Review, 29. 29­41. Chung, J. Y., Lee, J., & Heath, R. L. (2013). Public relations aspects of brand attitudes and

customer activity. Public Relations Review, 39(5). 432­439.

Coombs, D. S. & Osborne, A. (2012). A case study of Aston Villa Football Club. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(3). 201­221.

Curtis, L., Edwards, C., Fraser, K. L., Gudelsky, S., Holmquist, J., Thornton, K., & Sweetser, K. D. (2010). Adoption of social media for public relations by nonprofit organizations. Public Relations Review, 36. 90­92.

Delbaere, M., McQuarrie, E. F., & Phillips, B. J. (2011). Personification in advertising: Using a

visual metaphor to trigger anthropomorphism. Journal of Advertising, 40(1). 121­130. Devin, B. L. & Lane, A. B. (2014). Communicating engagement in corporate social

responsibility: A meta­level construal of engagement. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 436­454.

Diga, M. & Kelleher, T. (2009). Social media use, perceptions of decision­making power, and public relations roles. Public Relations Review, 35. 440­442.

DiStaso, M. W., McCorkindale, T., & Wright, D. K. (2011). How public relations executives

perceive and measure the impact of social media in their organizations. Public Relations Review, 37. 325­328.

Eisend, M. & Stokburger­Sauer, N. E. (2013). Measurement characteristics of Aaker’s brand

personality dimensions: Lessons to be learned from human personality research. Psychology and Marketing, 30(11). 950­958.

Page 44: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 44

Eyrich, N., Padman, M. L., & Sweetser, K. D. (2008). PR practitioners’ use of social media tools and communication technology. Public Relations Review, 34. 412­414.

Forernan­Wernet, L. & Dervin, B. (2006). Listening to learn: “Inactive” publics of the arts as

exemplar. Public Relations Review, 32(3). 287­294.

Gallicano, T. D. (2013). Internal conflict management and decision making: A qualitative study of a multitiered grassroots advocacy organization. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25(4). 368­388.

Gilpin, D. R. (2010). Organizational image construction in a fragmented online media environment. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(3). 265­287.

Gobé, M. (2009). Emotional branding. New York, NY: Allworth Press. González­Herrero, A. & Ruiz de Valbuena, M. (2006). Trends in online media relations:

Web­based corporate press rooms in leading international companies. Public Relations Review, 32. 267­275.

Grunig, J. E. (1993). Image and substance: From symbolic to behavioral relationships. Public

Relations Review, 19. 121­139.

Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2007). Made to stick. New York, NY: Random House Publishing Group. Heath, R. L. (2013). The journey to understand and champion OPR takes many roads, some not

yet well traveled. Public Relations Review, 39. 426­431.

Hon, L. C. & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations.

Huang, Y. H. (2001a). OPRA: A cross­cultural, multiple­item scale for measuring organization­public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(1). 61­90.

Huang, Y. H. (2001b). Values of public relations: Effects on organization­public relationships

mediating conflict resolution. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(4). 265­301. Huang, Y. H. (2004). Is symmetrical communication ethical and effective? Journal of Business

Ethics, 53(4). 333­352.

Page 45: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 45

Huang, Y. H. & Zhang, Y. (2013). Revisiting organization­public relations research over the past decade: Theoretical concepts, measures, methodologies, and challenges. Public Relations Review, 39. 85­87.

Hutton, J. G. (1999). The definition, dimensions, and domain of public relations. Public

Relations Review, 25(2). 199­214. Hwang, S. (2012). The strategic use of Twitter to manage personal public relations. Public

Relations Review, 38. 159­161. Ingenhoff, D. & Sommer, K. (2010). Trust in companies and in CEOs: A comparative study of

the main influences. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3). 339­355. Ivanov, B., Sims, J. D., & Parker, K. A. (2013). Leading the way in new product introductions:

Publicity’s message sequencing success with corporate credibility and image as moderators. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25(5). 442­466.

Jacobi, J. (1971). Complex/archetype/symbol in the psychology of C.G. Jung. (R. Manheim, Trans.) Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1959)

Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological Types (Vol. 6). (G. Adler & R. F. C. Hull, Trans.). Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1921) Jung, C. G., Franz, M. L., Henderson, J. L., Jacobi, J., & Jaffé, A. (1964). Man and his symbols.

New York, NY: Doubleday. Kang, M. (2014). Understanding public engagement: Conceptualizing and measuring its

influence on supportive behavioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5). 399­416.

Keirsey, D. & Bates, M. (1984). Please understand me: Character and temperament types. Del

Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. Kent, M. L. & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the world wide web.

Public Relations Review, 24(3). 321­334. Kent, M. L. & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations

Review, 28. 21­37.

Page 46: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 46

Kent, M. L., Taylor, M., & White, W. J. (2003). The relationship between website design and organizational responsiveness to stakeholders. Public Relations Review, 29. 63­77.

Ki, E. J. (2013). A model of an organization­public relationship for the banking industry. Public

Relations Review, 39(3). 216­218.

Ki, E. J. & Hon, L. C. (2007). Reliability and validity of organization­public relationship measurement and linkages among relationship indicators in a membership organization. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 84(3). 419­438.

Ki, E. J. & Hon, L. C. (2009). A measure of relationship cultivation strategies. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(1). 1­24.

Kim, H. S. (2009). Examining the role of informational justice in the wake of downsizing from an organizational relationship management perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2). 297­312.

Kim, Y. (2001). Searching for the organization­public relationship: A valid and reliable

instrument. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78. 799­815.

Kirat, M. (2007). Promoting online media relations: Public relations departments’ use of Internet in the UAE. Public Relations Review, 33. 166­174.

Kunde, J. (2002). Unique now… or never. Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited. Lauzen, M. M. (1995). Public relations manager involvement in strategic issue diagnosis. Public

Relations Review, 21(4). 287­304. Ledingham, J. A. & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management and public relations:

Dimensions of an organization­public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24. 55­65.

Lee, H. & Park, H. (2013). Testing the impact of message interactivity on relationship management and organizational reputation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25(2). 188­206.

Liu, X. (2006). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: Public relations and multinational corporations. International Journal of Advertising, 25(4). 447­470.

Page 47: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 47

Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Review, 38. 313­318.

Maehle, N. & Supphellen, M. (2011). In search of the sources of brand personality. International

Journal of Market Research, 53(1). 95­114. Malär, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W. D., & Nyffenegger, B. (2011). Emotional brand attachment

and brand personality: The relative importance of the actual and the ideal self. American Marketing Association, 75. 35­52.

Malär, L., Nyffenegger, B., Krohmer, H., & Hoyer, W. D. (2011). Implementing an intended

brand personality: A dyadic perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40. 728­744.

Mark, M, & Pearson, C. S. (2001). The hero and the outlaw. New York, NY: McGraw­Hill. McAllister­Spooner, S. M. (2009). Fulfilling the dialogic promise: A ten­year reflective survey

on dialogic Internet principles. Public Relations Review, 35. 320­322. Men, L. R. (2014). Why leadership matters to internal communication: Linking transformational

leadership, symmetrical communication, and employee outcomes. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(3). 256­279.

Millman, D. (2011). Brand thinking and other noble pursuits. Jeremy Lehrer, (Ed.). New York, NY: Allworth Press.

Moon, B. B. & Rhee, Y. (2013). Exploring negative dimensions of organization­public

relationships (NOPR) in public relations. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 90(4). 691­714.

Neumeier, M. (2003). The brand gap. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing. Ni, L. (2006). Relationships as organizational resources: Examining public relations impact

through its connection with organizational strategies. Public Relations Review, 32. 276­281.

Papacharissi, Z. & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting and

Electronic Media, 44(2). 175­196.

Page 48: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 48

Park, J. K. & John, D. R. (2010). Got to get you into my life: Do brand personalities rub off on

consumers?. Journal of Consumer Research, 37. 655­669. Plowman, K.D. (2005). Conflict, strategic management, and public relations. Public Relations

Review, 31. 131­138. Plowman, K. D. (2013). Creating a model to measure relationships: US army strategic

communication. Public Relations Review, 39(5). 549­557.

Porter, L. (2010). Communicating for the good of the state: A post­symmetrical polemic on persuasion in ethical public relations. Public Relations Review, 36. 127­133.

Puzakova, M., Kwak, H., & Rocereto, J. F. (2013). When humanizing brands goes wrong: The

detrimental effect of brand anthropomorphization amid product wrongdoings. Journal of Marketing, 77. 81­100.

Riso, D. R. (1987). Personality types: Using the Enneagram for self­discovery. Boston, MA:

Houghton Mifflin Company. Romaniuk, J. (2008). Comparing methods of measuring brand personality traits. Journal of

Marketing Theory and Practice, 16(2). 153­161. Rybalko, S. & Seltzer, T. (2010). Dialogic communication in 140 characters or less: How

Fortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using Twitter. Public Relations Review, 36. 336­341.

Shen, H. M. & Kim, J. N. (2012). The authentic enterprise: Another buzz word, or a true drive of

quality relationships?. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(4). 371­389.

Steyn, P., Salehi­Sangari, E., Pitt, L., Parent, M., & Berthon, P. (2010). The social media release as a public relations tool: Intentions to use among B2B bloggers. Public Relations Review, 36. 87­89.

Stoker, K. (2014). Paradox in public relations: Why managing relating makes more sense than

managing relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(4). 344­358.

Page 49: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 49

Sung, M. & Yang, S. U. (2009). Student­university relationships and reputation: A study of the links between key factors fostering students’ supportive behavioral intentions towards their university. Higher Education, 57(6). 787­811.

Sung, Y. & Kim, J. (2010). Effects of brand personality on brand trust and brand affect.

Psychology and Marketing, 27(7). 639­661. Swaminathan, V., Stilley, K. M., & Ahluwalia, R. (2009). When brand personality matters: The

moderating role of attachment styles. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6). 985­1002. Sweetser, K. D., English, K., & Fernandes, J. (2015). Super PACs and strong relationships: The

impact of digital interaction on the political organization­public relationship. Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(2), 101­117.

Sweetser, K. D. & Kelleher, T. (2011). A survey of social media use, motivation and leadership among public relations practitioners. Public Relations Review, 37. 425­428.

Taylor, M. & Kent, M. L. (2010). Anticipatory socialization in the use of social media in public

relations: A content analysis of PRSA’s Public Relations Tactics. Public Relations Review, 36. 207­214.

Taylor, M. & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts.

Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 384­398.

Taylor, M., Kent, M. L., & White, W. J. (2001). How activist organizations are using the Internet to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 27. 263­284.

Theunissen, P. & Wan Noordin, W. N. (2012). Revisiting the concept “dialogue” in public

relations. Public Relations Review, 38. 5­13. Valentini, C. (2015). Is using social media “good” for the public relations profession? A critical

reflection. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 170­177.

Valentini, C., Kruckeberg, D., & Starck, K. (2012). Public relations and community: A persistent covenant. Public Relations Review, 38(5). 873­879.

Vasquez, G. M. & Taylor, M. (2000). What cultural values influence American public relations

practitioners?. Public Relations Review, 25(4). 433­449.

Page 50: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 50

Verhoeven, P., Tench, R., Zerfass, A., Moreno, A., & Verčič, D. (2012). How European PR practitioners handle digital and social media. Public Relations Review, 38. 162­164.

Vorvoreanu, M. (2006). Online organization­public relationships: An experience­centered

approach. Public Relations Review, 32(4). 395­401.

Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35. 102­106.

Waters, R. D. & Jamal, J. Y. (2011). Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of nonprofit

organizations’ Twitter updates. Public Relations Review, 37. 321­324. Waymer, D. (2013). Democracy and government public relations: Expanding the scope of

“relationship” in public relations research. Public Relations Review, 39(4). 320­331.

Wheeler, A. (2009). Designing brand identity (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Wong, L. (2005). Brand think: A guide to branding. Victoria, BC, Canada: Trafford Publishing. Xifra, J. & Grau, F. (2010). Nanoblogging PR: The discourse on public relations in Twitter.

Public Relations Review, 36. 171­174. Yang, A. & Taylor, M. (2015). Looking over, looking out, and moving forward: Positioning

public relations in theorizing organizational network ecologies. Communication Theory, 25(1), 91­115.

Yang, L. W., Cutright, K. M., Chartrand, T. L., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2014). Distinctively

different: Exposure to multiple brands in low­elaboration settings. Journal of Consumer Research, 40. 973­992.

Yorkston, E. A., Nunes, J. C., & Matta, S. (2010). The malleable brand: The role of implicit

theories in evaluating brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 74. 80­93.

Page 51: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 51

Appendix A

Intuitive­Thinking Company

Xentro Motors

Biography:

Founded in 2001, Xentro Motors was created by a collection of scientists and engineers that had

one desire—to create one­of­a­kind vehicles with peak performance, low costs, and

sustainability. Xentro’s team of inventors and innovators build engines that surpass the

standard—the Model X accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in 3.6 seconds, the Model Y achieves a

remarkable 85 miles per gallon, and the Model Z has more than 1,000 different customizable

combinations. At Xentra, a premium is placed on using vehicles in new and different ways while

still performing at the highest end of any competition.

Page 52: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 52

Twitter:

@XentroMotors

Page 53: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 53

Appendix B

Intuitive­Feeling Company

Finn Motor Company

Biography:

Finn Motor Company is an American automaker based out of historic Detroit. Founded in the

1930’s, we are proud of our heritage, and it shows in our automobiles. We are committed to

producing great products for many types of people, and we always strive to be a part of

something better. Whether you are looking for a family road trip or just something safe to grow

old with, we make the vehicle for you. With the best car portfolio on this side of the pond, our

commitment to improving our vehicles and our drivers’ lives is always at the forefront of our

minds.

Page 54: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 54

Twitter:

@FMC

Page 55: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 55

Appendix C

Sensing­Feeling Company

Saef

Biography:

It is a most perfect history. Sati’s emblem is known worldwide and symbolizes performance,

power, and prestige. We have been around for ages, and everyone recognizes the specific Saef

bold design. Listen to the story of Saef, the auto company that grew from humble beginnings as a

sprocket company in the early 1900’s through tough times that forced the company to become

stronger through a depression until the founder created the signature look of what came to be

known as Saef. Feel the nostalgia, embrace the car’s contours, and see the boldness of colors.

Hearing “Saef” will produce excitement, and we want you to be a part of that when you purchase

your own.

Page 56: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 56

Twitter:

@Saef

Page 57: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 57

Appendix D

Sensing­Thinking Company

Tossi of America

Biography:

Created in 1950, Tossi was the result of two European inventors who wanted to create a solid

machine for transport. Blood, sweat, and tears were thrown into the mix, and the original Tossi

Sidewinder Car was born. It was loud, but it was efficient. Over the years, our company has

expanded to Asia, Africa, and North America and created many more cars along the way. They

may not all be as loud as the first Sidewinder, but they are still pushing forward in efficiency.

Tossi is a car that you can feel the 1.5­ton heft of the steel frame that you know will keep you

safe, while allowing for acceleration that beats all others. Tossi is affordable and outperforms: if

you don’t believe us, come see for yourself.

Page 58: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 58

Twitter:

@Tossi­US

Page 59: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 59

Appendix E

Survey questions asked regarding each company (organized by OPR dimension)

Trust

1. This organization can be relied on to keep its promises.

• • • • • • •

Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

2. I feel very confident about this organization’s skills.

• • • • • • •

Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

3. I believe that this organization takes the opinions of people like me into account when making

decisions.

• • • • • • •

Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

4. This organization does not mislead people like me.

• • • • • • •

Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

5. I think it is important to watch this organization closely so that it does not take advantage of

people like me. (Reversed)

• • • • • • •

Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

Page 60: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 60

Control mutuality

6. This organization believes the opinions of people like me are legitimate.

• • • • • • •

Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

7. This organization won’t cooperate with people like me. (Reversed)

• • • • • • •

Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

8. I believe people like me have influence on the decision­makers of this organization.

• • • • • • •

Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

9. This organization and people like me are attentive to what each other say.

• • • • • • •

Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

10. When I would have an opportunity to interact with this organization, I would feel that I have

some sense of control over the situation.

• • • • • • •

Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

Page 61: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 61

Commitment

11. I can see that this organization wants to maintain a relationship with people like me.

• • • • • • •

Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

12. I would rather work together with this organization than not.

• • • • • • •

Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

13. I have no desire to have a relationship with this organization. (Reversed)

• • • • • • •

Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

14. There is a long­lasting bond between this organization and people like me.

• • • • • • •

Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

15. Compared to other organizations, I would value my relationship with this organization more.

• • • • • • •

Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

Page 62: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC

BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 62

Satisfaction

16. I am happy with this organization.

• • • • • • •

Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

17. Most people like me are happy in their interactions with this organization.

• • • • • • •

Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

18. I feel people like me are important to this organization.

• • • • • • •

Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

19. Both the organization and people like me benefit from the relationship.

• • • • • • •

Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

20. The organization fails to satisfy the needs of people like me. [Reversed]

• • • • • • •

Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree