<%BANNER%>

The Association between the Public's Perceptions of Government's Crisis Communications and Government-Public Relationships

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0025115/00001

Material Information

Title: The Association between the Public's Perceptions of Government's Crisis Communications and Government-Public Relationships
Physical Description: 1 online resource (77 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Park, Hanna
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: crisis, opr, public, relationship, the
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Mass Communication thesis, M.A.M.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE PUBLIC'S PERCEPTIONS OF GOVERNMENT?S CRISIS COMMUNICATIONS AND GOVERNMENT-PUBLIC RELATIONSHIPS This study attempted to explore the associations among variables - the severity of the crisis, crisis communication strategies relationship maintenance strategies, and government-public relationships based on an actual crisis in South Korea. Mass protests in 2008 against the U.S. beef import into South Korea were considered as a crisis for the Korean government. To examine the public's perceptions of this crisis, online community users of two major portal sites in South Korea, Naver and Daum, were recruited. A total of 200 people participated in online surveys for this study. Results showed that respondents thought the crisis - mass protests against the U.S. beef import into South Korea - was something that the Korean government could control. They also agreed that the government was responsible for the crisis and this sort of crisis happened frequently. Thus, they perceived the crisis as severe. In addition, their perceptions of the government's crisis communication efforts during the crisis were generally asymmetrical or defensive. In terms of the government's relationship maintenance strategies during the crisis, respondents disagreed that the government's communication was two-way symmetrical. Respondents thought that the government used justification the most rather than full apology or corrective action. Respondents' perceptions of government-public relationships were not positive overall. Moreover, their support for the government and president was decreased after the crisis happened. This research showed that relationship maintenance strategies were positively correlated with government-public relationships. In addition, government-public relationships were positively correlated to accommodative strategies while GPRs were negatively correlated with defensive strategies. This study also found positive correlations between government-public relationships and the public?s support for the government and the president.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Hanna Park.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.M.C.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Hon, Linda L.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2011-12-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0025115:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0025115/00001

Material Information

Title: The Association between the Public's Perceptions of Government's Crisis Communications and Government-Public Relationships
Physical Description: 1 online resource (77 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Park, Hanna
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2009

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: crisis, opr, public, relationship, the
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Mass Communication thesis, M.A.M.C.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE PUBLIC'S PERCEPTIONS OF GOVERNMENT?S CRISIS COMMUNICATIONS AND GOVERNMENT-PUBLIC RELATIONSHIPS This study attempted to explore the associations among variables - the severity of the crisis, crisis communication strategies relationship maintenance strategies, and government-public relationships based on an actual crisis in South Korea. Mass protests in 2008 against the U.S. beef import into South Korea were considered as a crisis for the Korean government. To examine the public's perceptions of this crisis, online community users of two major portal sites in South Korea, Naver and Daum, were recruited. A total of 200 people participated in online surveys for this study. Results showed that respondents thought the crisis - mass protests against the U.S. beef import into South Korea - was something that the Korean government could control. They also agreed that the government was responsible for the crisis and this sort of crisis happened frequently. Thus, they perceived the crisis as severe. In addition, their perceptions of the government's crisis communication efforts during the crisis were generally asymmetrical or defensive. In terms of the government's relationship maintenance strategies during the crisis, respondents disagreed that the government's communication was two-way symmetrical. Respondents thought that the government used justification the most rather than full apology or corrective action. Respondents' perceptions of government-public relationships were not positive overall. Moreover, their support for the government and president was decreased after the crisis happened. This research showed that relationship maintenance strategies were positively correlated with government-public relationships. In addition, government-public relationships were positively correlated to accommodative strategies while GPRs were negatively correlated with defensive strategies. This study also found positive correlations between government-public relationships and the public?s support for the government and the president.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Hanna Park.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.M.C.)--University of Florida, 2009.
Local: Adviser: Hon, Linda L.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2011-12-31

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2009
System ID: UFE0025115:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE PUBLICS PERCEPTIONS OF GOVERNMENTS CRISIS COMMUNICATIONS AND GOVE RNMENT-PUBLIC RELATIONSHIPS By HANNA PARK A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN MASS COMMUNICATION UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2009

PAGE 2

2 2009 Hanna Park

PAGE 3

3 To my family and Hokeun

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I sincerely thank the chair, Dr. Linda H on and members of my supervisory comm ittee, Dr. Mary Ann Ferguson and Dr. Spiro Kiousis for all of their guidance and support. I thank my family and Hokeun for their love and support, wh ich motivated me to complete my research. I would like to express my gratitude to the P ublic Relations Advisory Council Research Committee for the financial support. I am sincerel y grateful to my ment or, Dr. Yunna Rhee. I also thank all of my friends, HUFS alumni, a nd Korean gators for their encouragement.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................................4LIST OF TABLES ...........................................................................................................................7LIST OF FIGURES .........................................................................................................................9ABSTRACT ...................................................................................................................... .............10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 122 LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................................15Public Relations as Relationship Management ....................................................................... 15Crisis Management from a Relational Perspective ................................................................. 18The Korea-U.S. Beef Deal in 2008 ......................................................................................... 233 METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................. 28Research Procedures ...............................................................................................................28Measurements .................................................................................................................. .......294 RESULTS ....................................................................................................................... ........33Descriptions of Sample ...........................................................................................................33Descriptive Statistics ........................................................................................................ ......35Research Question 1: Severity of the Crisis .................................................................... 36Research Question 2: Governments Crisis Communication .......................................... 37Research Question 3: Government-Public Relationships (Relationship Quality Outcomes) .................................................................................................................... 42Support for the Government and the President ............................................................... 44Reliability of Measurement Items .......................................................................................... 45Correlations and Regressions .................................................................................................51Hypothesis 1: The Associations betw een Crisis Severity and GPRs .............................. 51Hypothesis 2: The Associations between Crisis Communication and GPRs .................. 52Hypothesis 3: The Associations between GPRs and Support for the Government ......... 555 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 57Summary of Results ................................................................................................................57Theoretical and Practical Implications ................................................................................... 59Limitations and Future Research ............................................................................................ 62

PAGE 6

6 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (English Version) ..................................................................64B SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (Korean Version) ..................................................................69LIST OF REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................74BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .........................................................................................................77

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1 Dimensions of organiza tion-public relationships ..............................................................172-2 Summary of U.S. beef im ports into South Korea ............................................................ 242-3 Summary of the Korean governments communication ....................................................273-1 Description of sampled online communities ...................................................................... 313-2 An online survey presentation posted on the onlin e communities ....................................314-1 Descriptions of Samples ....................................................................................................344-3 The media that respondents mainly used to get the informati on about the crisis .............. 354-4 The publics perception about the go vernments official information .............................. 364-5 Respondents perceptions of crisis severity .......................................................................374-6 Descriptive statistics for rela tionship maintenance strategies ........................................... 384-7 Mean and S.D. of RMS based on the respondents political party .................................... 404-8 Descriptive statistics for cr isis communication strategies .................................................414-9 Respondents overall evaluation of government crisis communication ............................424-10 Descriptive statistics for relationship quality outcomes ....................................................434-11 Respondents support for the government .........................................................................454-12 The result of EFA for relati onship maintenance strategies ................................................484-13 Fit measures for relationship mainte nance strategies measurement model ....................... 494-14 The result of EFA for relationship quality outcomes ......................................................... 504-15 Fit measures for relations hip quality outcomes model ...................................................... 514-16 Correlations between cris is severity and GPRs ................................................................. 524-17 Correlations between crisis communication and GPRs ..................................................... 524-18 The associations among each indicator of RMS and GPRs ............................................... 53

PAGE 8

8 4-19 Correlations between crisis co mmunication strategies and GPRs ..................................... 554-20 Correlations between the government s overall communica tion and GPRs ..................... 55

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 Research Procedures ....................................................................................................... ...285-1 Relationship management strate gies and tactics during crises ..........................................61

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Dissertation Pres ented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Mast er of Arts in Mass Communication THE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE PUBLICS PERCEPTIONS OF GOVERNMENTS CRISIS COMMUNICATIONS AND GOVE RNMENT-PUBLIC RELATIONSHIPS By Hanna Park December 2009 Chair: Linda Childers Hon Major: Mass Communication This study attempted to explore the associa tions among variables the severity of the crisis, crisis communication st rategies relationship maintena nce strategies, and governmentpublic relationships based on an actual crisis in South Korea. Mass protests in 2008 against the U.S. beef import into South Korea were consid ered as a crisis for the Korean government. To examine the publics percep tions of this crisis, online community users of two major portal sites in South Korea, Naver and Daum were recruited. A total of 200 people participated in online surveys for this study. Results showed that respondents thought the cris is mass protests against the U.S. beef import into South Korea was something that the Korean government could control. They also agreed that the government was responsible for the crisis and this so rt of crisis happened frequently. Thus, they percei ved the crisis as severe. In addition, their perceptions of the government crisis co mmunication efforts during the crisis were generally asymmetrical or defensive. In terms of the governments relationship maintenance strategies during the crisis, re spondents disagreed that the governments communication was two-way symmetrical. Resp ondents thought that the government used

PAGE 11

11 justification the most rather than full apology or corrective action. Respo ndents perceptions of government-public relationships were not posi tive overall. Moreover, their support for the government and president was decr eased after the crisis happened. This research showed that relationship mainte nance strategies were positively correlated with government-public relations hips. In addition, government-public relationships were positively correlated to accommodative strategies while GPRs were negatively correlated with defensive strategies. This study also found posit ive correlations betw een government-public relationships and the publics support for the government and the president.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION It has been one year s ince the free trade ag reement (FTA) including U.S. beef imports to South Korea was contracted be tween Korea and the United States of America. On April 18, 2008, the Korean government agreed on the import of U.S. beef into South Korea. This agreement provoked a massive candlelight demons tration for several months. More than 500,000 people (The population of South Korea is 48,747,000 according to KOSIS1) gathered all over the country to protest the Ko rean governments decision2. They objected to the deal and criticized the governments neglect of national concern about the Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) commonly known as mad cow disease risk of U.S. beef. U.S. beef imports have been a controversial issue in South Ko rea since the first apparent case of BSE was discovered in the U.S. in 20033. This agreement instigated the countrys largest anti-government protests in 20 years (PD Journal, 2008). The Korean government prescribed the gather ing as an unlawful assembly and tried to subjugate protesters by calling out police. Hundred s of citizens were injured when they protested and confronted police. People were very angr y with the governments actions; hence, the publics support for the government had greatly fallen. It was an unprecedented crisis after the Korean president, Myung-bak Lee assumed his administration. Although violent street protests against the Korean government have considerably dw indled at this point, th ere are still criticisms from civil groups that the government suppr esses the publics freedom of expression. 1 KOSIS, Korean Statistical Information Services (2009). Major statistical indicators of South Korea. Retrieved on June 28, 2009 from http://www.kosis.kr/html/a utoJipyo/jipyo_h_view.jsp 2 PD Journal (2008). Candlelight dem onstration for two months. July 2, 2008. Retrieved on May 27, 2009 from http://www.pdjournal.com/news/a rticleView.html?idxno=16569 3 CNN (2003). First apparent U.S. case of mad cow disease discovered. December 24, 2003. Retrieved on May 27, 2009 from http://edition.cnn.com/2003/US/12/23/mad.cow/.

PAGE 13

13 A government, like a person or an organization, can have countless crises repeatedly as this case mass protests in South Korea de monstrated. Crises can sometimes threaten the existence of the organization (Fearn-Banks, 2007). Since a government usually has relationships with various publics such as general citizens, civic groups, and foreigne rs, there could be many crises that threaten their management. Thus a government should know how to skillfully communicate with these publics, how to effectiv ely manage crises, and how to successfully overcome them. Therefore, cris is communication can be a critical matter for a government. Crisis communication has been widely studied by public relations scholars. Coombs and Holladay (1996) examined several va riables related to the severity of crisis: stability, control and intentionality of the crisis. Coombs (1998; 2001) also suggested severa l crisis communication strategies such as attack the accuser, denial, excuse, justificat ion, ingratiation, corrective action, and full apology which are located on the continuum of defens ive communication and accommodative communication. Based on this concept, Coombs (2004) developed the situational crisis communication theory (SCCT). According to him, organizations can adopt adequate crisis communication strategies based on the severity of the crisis. Meanwhile, public relations has been redefi ned as a relationship management function between organizations and thei r public, since Ferguson (1984) pr esented that relationships should be a focal concept of public relati ons study. However, many organization-public relationships (OPR) studies have focused on fo r-profit organizations; le ss research has been conducted in the area of government-public relationships. To fill this void, this study examines the influence of the publics perception of a crisis sever ity and their perceptions of governments communication efforts dealing with the crisis on government-public relationships. By adopting the relationship management perspec tive to this study, it attemp ts to investigate the

PAGE 14

14 association between the publics perceptions of a governments crisis communication and their perceptions of government-public relationships. More specific ally, this study explores the association between two variable s: publics perceptions of g overnments crisis communication and their perceptions of govern ment-public relationships. Another purpose of this research is to explore associations among relationship maintenance strategies, crisis communication st rategies, and government -public relationships by studying an actual crisis: mass prot ests against the import of U.S. beef into South Korea in 2008. This study focuses on a governments crisis communication not how actual communication efforts were presented by the Korean government but how the public perc eives the governments crisis communication. Data were collected by co nducting online surveys in South Korea to examine perceptions of the public in general. South Korea was selected for this study because there have been many crises including mass protests against the Ko rea-U.S. beef deal after Lee Myung-Baks new administration in 2008.

PAGE 15

15 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Public Relations as Re lationship Management Relationship managem ent theory, the conceptual framework of this study, has been actively discussed since Fe rguson (1984) suggested that relations hips should be the focal concept of public relations. Specifically, the concept of organization-public re lationships (OPR) is currently discussed as the focus of public relations theory and practice. According to Ledingham and Bruning (1998), organization-pu blic relationship is defined as the state which exists between an organization and its key publics, in which the actions of either can impact the economic, social, cultural or po litical well being of the othe r (p. 62). Broom, Casey, and Ritchey (2000) defined relationshi ps as properties of exchange, transactions and interconnection leading to mutual benefit. In this study, following the widely accepted Broom, Casey, and Ritcheys definition, organizationpublic relationships are conceptualized as the patterns of interaction, transaction, exchange, and linkage be tween an organization a nd its strategic publics. In their research, Broom, Ca sey, and Ritchey (1997) proposed a model of organizationpublic relationships including antecedents to a re lationship, relationship st ates, and relationship consequences. J. Grunig & Huang (2000) adopted Broom et al.(1997)s model a nd suggested that the study on organization-publ ic relationships should in clude each of the three components of the model: relationship antece dents, relationship maintena nce strategies, and outcomes of the strategies. This study focuses on the asso ciation between relationship mainte nance strategies and relationship outcomes based on an actual cris is. Relationship mainte nance strategies are communication efforts used by public relations pract itioners to build and maintain favorable relationships between organizations and their p ublics. In this study, relationship maintenance strategies considered as symmetrical crisis communication effo rts to deal with crises and maintain relationships with publics.

PAGE 16

16 Specifically, there are six relationship maintenance strategies: access, positivity, openness, assurance, networking, and shar ing of tasks (Hon & J. Grunig, 1999). Access is defined as a strategy that the or ganization or publics use to reach the other party and express or share queries, opinions and thoughts. Positivity refers anything the organization or publics do to make the relationship more enjoyable for the parties involved. Openness is considered as the condition in which both organizations and publ ics are open and honest with each other. Assurance is the effort by an organization to assure its publics and their concerns are attended to. Sharing of tasks means an organizations and publics shar ing of effort in solving their problems or issues. Networking is considered as an organizations e ffort to build networks or coalitions with the similar groups for their activities. According to Hon and J. Grunig, these symmetrical strategies can generate be tter relationship outcomes. These relationship maintenance strategies are redefined based on a crisis situation. In this study, access is defined as the degree that publics access the information of the governments crisis management process and express their opinion about the crisis. Positivity refers to the governments effort to willingly commun icate with publics about the crisis. Openness is considered as the degree that government is open and honest to their publics in the crisis situation. Assurance is defined as the governments effort to a ssure publics that it is effectively managing the crisis. Networking refers to the governments effort to bu ild networks or coalitions to effectively repair the crisis. Sharing of tasks is regarded as the governments sharing of effort at managing the crisis. These relationship maintenance strategies may affect governmentpublic relationships. Many scholars have tried to measure relationship outcomes as public relations effectiveness and suggested various dimensions of organization-public re lationships (OPRs) as shown in table 2-1.

PAGE 17

17 Huang (1997) considered trust, control mutu ality, relational commitment, and relational satisfaction as the most essential indicators of OPRs. Bruning and Ledingham (1998) suggested that openness, trust, involvem ent, investment, and commitment are significant dimensions representing OPRs. Hon and Gruni g (1999) integrated a variety of dimensions of organizationpublic relationships thro ugh an extensive literature review and proposed relationship components control mutuality, trust, satis faction, and commitment and relationship types exchange relationship and communal relationship. Several Korean scholars also attempted to explore OPRs. Kim (2001) tried to suggest reliable and valid dimensions of OPRs trust, commitment, commu nity involvement, and reputation by using various inst ruments suggested by scholars and conducting exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Recently, Kim and Lee (2008) developed an organization-public relationship scale that opted to reflect the Korean cultural context. They distinguished attachment, which refers to emotional conn ectedness, from commitment and included it in their survey questionnaire as a new dimension. However, research on these specific dimensions is still nascent. Table 2-1. Dimensions of organization-public relationships Scholar Dimensions Ferguson (1984) dynamic / static, open / closed, mutual satisfaction, distribution of power, agreements, consensus, mutual understanding Grunig, Grunig & Ehling (1992) reciprocity, mutual legitimacy, trust, mutual understanding, mutual satisfaction, open ness, credibility Huang (1997) trust, control mutuality, relational commitment, relational satisfaction Ledingham & Bruning (1998) openness, trust, involvement, investment, commitment Bruning & Ledingham(1999) professional relationship, pe rsonal relationship, community relationship Hon & Grunig(1999) control mutuality, satisfaction, trust, commitment, exchange relationship, communal relationship Grunig & Huang(2000) control mutuality, trust, satisfacti on, commitment Kim (2001) trust, commitment, community involvement, reputation Huang(2001) control mutuality, f ace and favor, trust, satisfaction, commitment Kim & Lee (2008) commitment, symmetry, community involvement

PAGE 18

18 Thus, Hon and J. Grunig (1999)s items, whic h are widely accepted, are mainly adopted and tailored to the Korean government setting. Based on their definitions, control mutuality is considered as the publics perceptions about the degree to which parties a government and citizens in this study agree on who as the rightful power to affect one anot her. Trust refers to the level of confidence in and willingness to open oneself to the other party (p. 3). Satisfaction is defined as the state that the government a nd citizens feel favorably toward the other. Commitment refers to the extent that the gove rnment and citizens believe and feel that the relationship is worth spending energy to maintain. Several direct measures are added in a survey questionnaire for this study. Crisis Management from a Relational Perspective In current times, organizations are always at risk for a varie ty of cr ises. Crisis has been defined by many scholars. Renn (1992) said that a crisis could be explaine d with three features: undesirable outcomes, possibility of occurrence, and state of reality. Mitroff and Pearson (1993) defines crisis as an incident or event that threatens an orga nizations reputation and viability. According to Heath (1997), a crisis is an un timely event that can be anticipated, that may prevent management from accomplishing its effort s to create the unders tanding and satisfaction between their organization and inte rested parties needed to negotiate the mutually beneficial exchange of stakes (p. 290). Coombs (1999) defi nes crisis as an unpredictable, major threat that can have a negative effect on the organization, industry, or st akeholders (p. 2). A crisis is also defined as a major occurrence with a potentially negative outcome affecting the organization, company, or industry, as well as its publics, products, services, or good name (Fearn-Banks, 2007, p. 8). All organizations could be exposed to crises so they should recognize and prepare for the possibility.

PAGE 19

19 According to Coombs (2005), a crisis normally has three critical features. First of all, a crisis cannot be predicted but it can be expected (p. 217) meaning that communication managers must realize that there would be a cr isis although they could not forecast an actual crisis exactly. In addition to th is expectancy, a crisis has a potential of organization disruption, especially organizations which are vulnerable to the crisis in particular. Thus, if communication managers detect a crisis in its early stages and manage it quickly and effectively, it could just be an incident. However, the crisis could be fa tal to an organization s whole operation unless adequate actions are taken. Fina lly, a crisis can threaten the organization, the industry, or the stakeholders. In this regard, cr isis communication is really impor tant to manage a crisis and hence to avoid the worst situation. Coombs (1998) has tried to investigate effec tive crisis management and develop a crisisrelated theory from a relational perspective, wh ile previous crisis communication studies are comparatively more focused on a rhetorical appr oach which is apologia. He mentioned that a crisis could serve to damage the stakeholder-organization relationships Specifically, crisis responsibility refers to the degree to which stakeholders blame the organization for the crisis event (Coombs, 1998, p. 180). According to Coom bs and Holladay (1996) publics perception of crisis is related to crisis responsibility: th e more publics perceive that an organization is responsible for a crisis; the more the organi zations image or reputation might be damaged. Therefore, publics perception of crisis responsibility is really important. Coombs and Holladay (1996) id entified three causal dimensio ns stability, external control, and personal control which are related to crisis severity based on McAuley, Duncan and Russell (1992)s causal dimensions of attribution. Stability refers to whether a crisis happens frequently (stable) or infrequently (unstable). External control mean s that the crisis is controlled

PAGE 20

20 by others outside the organization. Personal control is related to in tentionality of the crisis. By adopting and tailoring their definiti ons, this study considers that th e publics perceptions of crisis severity are associated with the control of the cr isis (whether the crisis is controllable by the organization), the locus or intentionality of the cr isis (whether an organization is responsible for the crisis), and the sustainabi lity of the crisis (whether the crisis is stable). Coombs (1998; 2001) also suggested several crisis communication strategies that are located on the continuum of defensive co mmunication and accommodative communication. Accommodative strategies mean that an organizati on accepts responsibility fo r the crisis or takes corrective actions. Defensive strate gies mean that an organizati on denies responsibility for the crisis or argues there is no problem. Coombs (1998) developed the accommodative-defensive continuum by summarizing and compiling different crisis communication strategies through a literature review. Accommodative strategies are more likely to be related to symmetrical communication whereas defensive strategies are more related to asymmetrical communication. In this study, these strategies are measured to examine the publics perceptions about a governments communication during the crisis in a ddition to relationship maintenance strategies. According to Coombs (1998), attack the accuser, denial, excuse, justification, ingratiation, corrective action, and full apol ogy are located on the accommodative-defensive continuum. Attack the accuser refers to confronting the person or group who claims that there is a crisis. Denial is the strategy when an organization states that there is no crisis. Excuse is defined as the strategy that an organization uses to minimize its responsibility for the crisis. Justification refers to minimizing the perceived damage associated with the crisis. These strategies are defensive. However, corrective action means that an organization tries to repair the damage from the crisis and take actions to prevent similar crises. Full apology is the strategy

PAGE 21

21 when an organization takes full re sponsibility for the crisis and asks forgiveness for the crisis. These are accommodative strategies. If the public perceives that an organizati on is highly responsible for a crisis, the organization is more likely to use accommodative strategies. However, the organization tends to adopt defensive strategies rather than accommoda tive strategies when the public perceives that the organization is not responsib le for a crisis. Based on this concept, Coombs and Holladay (2002) developed the situ ational crisis communica tion theory (SCCT). According to this theory, an organization should select adequate responses to effectively manage a crisis, which can threaten the reputation of an organizati on, by assessing the crisis situation. During a crisis, providing co rrect and open information about a crisis to relevant stakeholders is important for an organizati on undergoing a crisis to maintain a favorable relationship with key publics (Coombs, 1999). However, the Korean government might overlook or even neglect the importance of communicatio n with publics, citizens in this case, during a crisis the Korea-U.S. beef d eal, for example, in 2008. The Korean government merely tried to control media relations to avoid negative news. Although the Korean government tried to control negative news coverage, negativ e public opinion was rapidly disseminated throughout online spheres such as Web sites, blogs, and mobiles. Th e protests of the Korea-U.S. beef deal and the Korean governments crisis commun ication will be discus sed more thoroughly in the next part of literature review. Then, how is a crisis managed effectively? Coombs suggested that effective crisis management is defined as a set of factors desi gned to combat crises and lessen the actual damage inflicted by a crisis (Coombs, 1999, p. 4). According to him, crisis managers should respond quickly, consistently, and openly. When a cr isis happens, stakeholders normally want to

PAGE 22

22 know what the crisis is exactly and how it is currently being managed (2007). Crisis managers should be aware of the importance of prom pt communication with their stakeholders. Consistency is another important principle when it comes to crisis communication, meaning that communication messages should not be changed over and over again during a crisis. Inconsistent messages may diminish their credib ility. Lastly, openness is also impor tant for an effective crisis communication. According to Coombs (1999), an or ganization should allow its stakeholders to contact organizational members to get informati on during a crisis. If the organization does not disclose information, publics might come to believe that an orga nization is concealing something. In fact, openness is also refe rred to as a significant strate gy to maintain relationships between an organization and its publics in mainte nance strategies as we ll (Hon & Grunig, 1999). This implies that there is a room for connectin g effective crisis management and relationship maintenance strategies (symmetri cal communication). Rela tionship, actually, has been discussed as an important variable to manage a crisis. For example, Mitroff and Anag nos (2001) argued that Johnson & Johnson could successfully deal with their crisis situation, Tylenol cyanide because they had a good relationship with stakeholde rs before the crisis happened. As with Johnson & Johnsons Tylenol case, a good relationship between an orga nization and its public contributes to the organization overcoming a crisis effectively wh en it takes place. According to Coombs (2000), publics tend to perceive the crisis as less severe if the organization has a good relationship with them. In addition, they perceive the orga nizations communication efforts as positive. Several studies (Han & Jeong, 2002; Kang & Cha, 2008) also reported that a good relationship between an organization and its public has positive influences on the publics perception of the crisis in Korea. Han and Jeong (2002) attempted to verify the effects of the

PAGE 23

23 organization-public relationships on crisis from a relationa l approach. By conducting an experiment, they demonstrated that publics are li kely to perceive the or ganization as having less responsibility for the crisis, if they perceive having a good re lationship with an organization. Kang and Cha (2008) also conducted an experiment to examine how the publics perceptions of relationship changes in the cris is situation. These studies show that the relational approach suggested by Coombs (2000) as significant to explain the publics pe rceptions of crisis. However, many studies have been done based on crisis scenarios, no t actual cases. Several studies on actual crises focus on describing the crisis itself and the organizations communication (Englehardt et al., 2004). According to Miller and Heath (2004), however, there could be differences between an actual cris is and the publics perception of a crisis. In other words, the public would perceive a crisis as very severe al though the actual crisis is not that severe. Thus, regarding the importance of OPRs, ho w the public perceives a crisis is more significant than what a crisis actually is. Followi ng this line of thinking, this study focuses how the public perceives a governments real crisis and the communicati on efforts rather than describing the crisis. The Korea-U.S. Beef Deal in 2008 The violent street protests against the Korean governm ents decision to import U.S. beef in 2008 is considered as a cris is in this study. These mass prot ests which are commonly called the mad cow protests opposed the Korean governme nts agreement to import U.S. beef into the country by arguing that U.S. beef is not safe. In fact, there have been arguments regarding the issue whether U.S. beef is safe enough to im port in South Korea before this agreement was contracted. U.S. Beef imports had been banned b ecause of the threat of mad cow disease since 2003 (see table 2-1). However, Lee Myung-Baks ne w administration decided to re-import U.S. beef on April 18th 2008 by arguing that U.S. beef is safe enough to import.

PAGE 24

24 Table 2-2. Summary of U.S. b eef imports into South Korea 4 5 Dates Contents 12/2003 Mad cow disease was disc overed in Washington State 12/27/2003 Korean Government banned all U. S. beef imports due to the mad cow concerns 02/28/2005 Held mad cow disease conference between the U.S. and South Korea 06/10/2005 Second case of mad cow dis ease was discovered in the U.S. 12/15/2005 The Minister of Agriculture and Forestry announced commencing S. Korea U.S. beef talks 09/08/2006 South Korea agreed to op en up to U.S. beef imports 10/30/2006 9 tons of U.S. beefs were imported in South Korea 11/24/2006 Bone chips were discovered in three shipments th at were imported into South Korea: these were sent back to the U.S.. 03/05/2007 South Korea agreed to ta lk about U.S. beef shipment 04/02/2007 FTA between South Korea and the U.S. 07/13/2007 Lotte Market bega n to sell U.S. beefs 08/01/2007 Spine cord detected in imported beef 08/02/2007 South Korea made the decisi on to cease U.S. beef imports 10/05/2007 Backbone was detected. S. Korea halted importing U.S. beef 10/05/2007 South Korea Opened the U.S. ri bs imports except internal organs 04/11/2008 South Korea and U.S. resumed talks on beef imports 04/18/2008 U.S. Korea Agreements on beef import with removal age restrictions 05/02/2008 The 1s t candle demonstration took place to oppose U.S. beef imports 05/06/2008 Korean Government promoted to extend a place of origin indication 05/20/2008 Talks begin with United States to clarify South Korea' s quarantine rights 05/22/2008 President Lee apologi zed for U.S. beef deal 05/29/2008 The governments official announcement 06/03/2008 Korea Government proposed to restri ct imports of U.S. beef over 30 months 06/12/2008 Korean Government announced addi tional conversation plans with U.S. 07/01/2008 Began selling U.S. beefs 08/11/2008 Began selling U.S. bone -in beef such as LA ribs 11/25/2008 The top 3 marts decided to resume U.S. beefs sales Over hundreds of thousands of people gathered periodically for several months (see table 2-2). They contended that the Korean gove rnment made the decision without any concern about the BSE diseases to Korean people. They argued that the governme nt should renegotiate the U.S. beef import deal. However, the Korean government disregarded their request and tried 4 Flyturtle.egroos.com (2008), U.S. beef imports arrangement, May 5, 2008, Retrieved from http://flyturtle.egloos.com/1675711 5 Lim, M. yonhapnews: summary of the U.S. beef imports, Nov 25, 2008, Retrieved from http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode =LSD&mid=sec&sid1=101&oid=001&aid=0002380789

PAGE 25

25 to suppress these gatherings with police force. During the gatherings, many citizens were injured by confronting police. Leaders of gatherings we re arrested. The governments actions amplified the conflict with citi zens and provoked candle demonstr ations all over the country. Korean President Lee u ltimately apologized fo r not thoroughly cons idering the publics concerns and emotions (see table 2-3). The Kore an government tried to re negotiate and restrict imports of U.S. beef 30 months or older, which were believed to be more likely to carry mad cow disease. Although mass prot ests against the Korea-U.S. beef de al have decreased, there are still criticisms from publics about U.S. beef imports and the governments asymme trical communication. Research Questions and Hypotheses Through a literature review, se veral research questions and hypotheses are stated as follows. Research Question 1: How does the public perc eive a government crisis, Korea-U.S. beef deal in 2008, in this study? Does the public perceive the crisis as severe? RQ 1-1: How does the public perc eive the control of the crisis? RQ 1-2: How does the public perc eive the locus of the crisis? RQ 1-3: How does the public perceive the sustainability of the crisis? Research Question 2: How does the public pe rceive the government crisis communication efforts during the crisis? RQ 2-1: How does the public perceive the government crisis communication efforts based on symmetrical relationshi p maintenance strategies (access, positivity, openness, assurance, networking, sharing of tasks)? RQ 2-2: How does the public perceive the governments crisis communication strategies (attack th e accuser, denial, excuse, justif ication, ingratiation, corrective action, full apology)? RQ 2-3: How does public evaluate the governments overall crisis communication? Research Question 3: How does the public perceive government-public relationships (control mutuality, trust, commitment, and satisfaction) after the crisis?

PAGE 26

26 In addition to these research questions stated above, this study also hopes to investigate three hypotheses: Research Hypothesis 1: The publics percepti ons of crisis severity will be negatively associated with its perceptions of government-public relationships. Research Hypothesis 2: The publics per ceptions of a governments communication strategies (symmetrical communi cation) during a crisis will be positively associated with its perceptions of government -public relationships. Research Hypothesis 3: The publics perceptions of government-public relationships will be positively associated with the publics support for the government.

PAGE 27

27 Table 2-3. Summary of the Korean governments communication Dates Contents 05/02/2008 The government emphasized that the security of U.S. beef was distorted by deliberately mistranslating, exaggerating the threat of mad cow disease. U.S. beef authorized its security from OEI.6 The government argued that U.S. beef is safe because it is a main staple for many Americans and the probability to get BSE is virtually zero.7 05/06/2008 The government emphasized that this U.S. beef deal was thoroughly examined by experts.8 05/08/2008 The government warned that they would punish people who disseminate false information and lead illegal gatherings to protests.9 06/07/2008 The government renegotiate about U.S. beef with the United States. The government made a request that the United States does not export beef from cattle aged 30 months or older to Korea.10 06/09/2008 President Lee apologized for not thoroughly considering the peoples emotion.11 06/19/2008 The government said th at it would not accept any U.S. beef from cattle older than 30 months in any case. President Lee reorganized his secretaries and cabinets.12 06/26/2008 The government announced that they did their best to protect the security of people and asked people to understand and support the government. The government also stated that illegal, violent demonstrations would be severely punished.13 6 CheongWaDae(2008), the Blue House news: should instruct mad cow disease, May 2, 2008, Retrieved from http://www.president.go.kr/kr/president/news/news_view.php?uno=92&article _no=15&board_no=P01&search_key=&search_va lue=&search_cate_code=&order_key1=1&order_k ey2=1&cur_page_no=5&cur_year=2008&cur_month=05 7 CheongWaDae(2008), the Blue Hous e news: Probability to be affected mad co w disease is virtually zero, May 2, 2008, Retrieved from http://www.president.go.kr/kr/president/news/news_view.php?uno=97&article _no=11&board_no=P01&search_key=&search_va lue=&search_cate_code=&order_key1=1&order_k ey2=1&cur_page_no=5&cur_year=2008&cur_month=05 8 CheongWaDae (2008), th e Blue House news: 2nd conference for U.S. beef security, May 6, 2008, Retrieved from http://www.president.go.kr/kr/president/news/news_view.php?uno=111&article_n o=22&board_no=P01&search_key=&search_v alue=&search_cate_code=&order _key1=1&order_key2=1&cur_page_no=4&cur_year=2008&cur_month=05 9 CheongWaDae (2008), the Blue House news: Protect peoples health and security, May 8, 2008, Retrieved from http://www.president.go.kr/kr/president/news/news_view.php?uno=120&article_n o=31&board_no=P01&search_key=&search_v alue=&search_cate_code=&order _key1=1&order_key2=1&cur_page_no=4&cur_year=2008&cur_month=05 10 CheongWaDae (2008), a spokespersons briefing: The manageme nt of government applies correspondingly to renegotiation, Jun 7, 2008, Retrieved from http://www.president.go.kr/kr/president/briefing/briefing_view.php?uno=81&ar ticle_no=4&board_no=P 02&search_key=&searc h_value=&search_cate_code =&order_key1=1&order_key2=1&cur_pa ge_no=1&cur_year=2008&cur_month=06 11 CheongWaDae (2008), a spokespersons briefing: should consider peoples emotion, Jun 9, 2008, Retrieved from http://www.president.go.kr/kr/preside nt/briefing/briefing_view.php?uno=82&ar ticle_no=5&board_no=P 02&search_key=&searc h_value=&search_cate_code =&order_key1=1&order_key2=1&cur_pa ge_no=1&cur_year=2008&cur_month=06 12 CheongWaDae (2008), a press conference: should consid er peoples emotion, Jun 19, 2008, Retrieved from http://www.president.go.kr/kr/president/speech/speech_view.php? uno=59&article_no=5&board_no=P 04&search_key=&search_ value=&search_cate_code=&orde r_key1=1&order_key2=1&cur_page _no=1&cur_year=2008&cur_month=06 13 CheongWaDae(2008), a press conference: finish U. S. beef criticism and focus on economy, Jun 26, 2008, http://www.president.go.kr/kr/president/briefing/briefing_view.php?uno=85&ar ticle_no=8&board_no=P 02&search_key=&searc h_value=&search_cate_code =&order_key1=1&order_key2=1&cur_pa ge_no=1&cur_year=2008&cur_month=06

PAGE 28

28 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Research Procedures To explore the associations between the publics perception of governments crisis communication and their percepti ons of relationship quality outcomes (governm ent-public relationships, GPRs), this research followed several procedures as shown in figure 3-1. Constructing questions through an extensive literature review Discussing questions with a scholar to assess face validity Institutional Review Board Conducting a pretest with two groups of people to refine the questions Constructing final questions for actual study Sampling Online survey Analysis Figure 3-1. Research Procedures To begin with, questions for measuring re lationship maintenance strategies, crisis communication strategies, and government-public relationships were constructed through an extensive literature review. Specifically, questions measuring perceptions of crisis severity were adopted from Coombs & Holladay (1996)s items; questions related to crisis communication strategies were originated from Coombs (1998) s items; questions of relationship maintenance strategies and relationship quali ty outcomes were constructed based on Hon & J. Grunigs (1999) measurement.

PAGE 29

29 The questionnaire which was reviewed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) was pretested to refine the questions For this pretest, a total num ber of 103 college students were recruited in the consumer behavior class and th e brand management class which were opening at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies in South Korea. Surveys with these respondents were conducted from June 2 to June 5, 2009. After pretesting, final questions for the main study were designed. Main surveys were conducted online with the purposive sample, whic h is explained in the next section. The statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software was used to investigate research questions and test hypotheses. Measurements In this study, all item s used the 7-point Like rt-type scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree except th e items for crisis sever ity. For crisis severity, the Semantic Differential scale was used. Detailed items fo r each variables are shown in Appendix A. Measurements for relationship maintenance strategies and relations hip quality outcome s were largely adopted from Hon & Grunig (1999)s work. Coom bs and Holladay (1996)s concept of crisis severity was used in this study. As for crisis communication st rategies, Coombs (1998)s measurement were modified. Population and Sample In terms of population and sample, a group of internet users who are members of online communities were recruited. Alt hough these internet users cannot represent the whole Korean population, they are significant as a sample consider ing most Koreans access the internet in their daily lives. According to the UN International Telecommunication Union (ITU), South Korea is ranked second in terms of a countrys information and communication technology

PAGE 30

30 development.14 The ICT Development Index (IDI) produced by ITU measures the number of households with a computer, the nu mber of internet users, and th e level of computer literacy. In addition, many active publics tend to be organized through online communities; hence, an online community is a good channe l to access the public. Specifically, the population of this study is co mposed of Korean internet users who are members of various online communities of two major portal sites, Naver.com and Daum.net in South Korea. Naver.com is a leading portal site in South Korea. It handles 77 percent of all Web searches15. Daum.net is another popular portal site which shares 10.8 percent of Web searches (Choe, 2007). Thus, most of Internet users in So uth Korea have their accounts in these two portal sites and many of them are members of different online communities. To collect respondents for the online survey, the researcher searched and visited online communities established in the political and social category. Ten online communities of each portal site, Naver and Daum were purposively chosen. In several online communities of each portal site, posting is limited to their memb ers; hence, the researcher could not post a presentation about this study and online survey URL. Table 3-1 shows the list of sampled online communities. A brief presentation (see table 3-2) about this study was distributed to each message board of these online communities. On the bottom of the presentation, an online survey webpage URL was linked to enable people to access and pa rticipate in the survey. Online surveys were conducted from to June 8 to June19, 2009. 14 Retrieved on March 15, 2009 from http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/sh ow/258139,un-sweden-south-korea-topcountries-in-information-technology.html 15 Choe S. H. (2007). South Korean connect through search engine. July 5, 2007. Retrieved on May 21, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/05/techno logy/05online.html?_r=2&oref=slogin

PAGE 31

31 Table 3-1. Description of sampled online communities Portal site Online community URL Total number of members Naver.com A http://cafe.naver.com/GO***** 1467 B http://cafe.naver.com/madcowlm*****585 C http://cafe.naver.com/jsjanfr***** 230 D http://cafe.naver.com/notm***** 74 E http://cafe.naver.com/ftakille***** 2235 Daum.net F http://cafe.daum.net/a***** 171303 G http://cafe.daum.net/nos***** 38783 H http://cafe.daum.net/hanry ***** 206800 I http://cafe,daum.net/MBD***** 3681 J http://cafe.daum.net/supp***** 2192 Respondents were asked to read the consent document before they participate in the study. Their participation was confidential and their all respon ses were anonymous. Their IP addresses were not recorded when they s ubmitted a questionnaire. All respondents were rewarded with monetary compensation: an one-dollar (1,000 KW). A total number of 215 Internet users particip ated in this study. Table 3-2. An online survey presenta tion posted on the online communities Hello, my name is Hanna Park, a graduate student at the College of Journalism and Communications at University of Florida. I am doing research on the association between the publics perceptions of governments crisis co mmunication and its perceptions of governmentpublic relationships in South Korea. For this study, I am looking for respondents who want to participate in an online survey. It will take approximately 15 minutes to answer all the questions. The responses you give will serve as valuable information for the research. Your participation will be confidential to the extent provided by law. The results will be used for academic purposes only. All your responses will be anonymous so that no one will be able to connect you to the answers you give. You do not have to answer any questions that you do not want to answer. If you are interested in this st udy and want to participate, plea se click Here an d then you will access the online survey webpage. Please contac t the researcher at 0708251-1218 or email at hanna1982@ufl.edu if you have any questions or want to get detailed expl anations about this study.

PAGE 32

32 Analysis Among a total number of 215 online responses, th e final sample contained 200 valid cases after eliminating 15 incomplete questionnaires. Befo re investigating research questions and analyzing the hypotheses, the reliability and validity of each variable were tested by conducting Cronbach s analysis, exploratory factor anal ysis and confirmatory factor an alysis by using the SPSS and AMOS programs. Specifically, reliability and validity of ma intenance strategies and government-public relationships were tested. First, an EFA usi ng the SPSS program for all relationship maintenance strategy measurement items access, positivity, openness, assurances, networking, and sharing of tasks was conducted to empirically examine relationship maintenance strategies suggested by Hon & J. Grunig (1999). In addition to an EFA, a CFA using the AMOS program was conducted to determine if this studys measurem ent model adequately fits the data. Similarly, government-Public Relationship scales were also tested through an EFA and a CFA. Then, descriptive statistics, correlations, analyses of variance (ANOVA), and regressions were conducted to answer research que stions and test hypotheses.

PAGE 33

33 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Descriptions of Sample Among a total of 200 online survey respondents, fem ales slightly outnumbered males: 107 (53.5%) were women and 93 (46.5%) were men. The age of respondents fell within the 19 58 year-old range: 79 (39.5%) were 20-29 years old, 63 (31.5%) were 30 39 years old, 47 (23.5%) were 40 49 years old, and 11 (5.5%) were 50 59 years old. The average age was about 34. Of those who responded, 79 (39.5%) were current underg raduate or graduate students, followed by 37 (18.5%) sales persons, 19 (9.5%) office worker s, 17 (8.5%) governmental officials, 17 (8.5%) housewives, 15 (7.5%) expert officials, 10 (5%) enterprise owners, 5 (2.5%) engineers, and 1 (0.5%) farmer. As for the level of education, 114 (57%) of the respondents had or were expected to have a bachelors degree and 38 (19%) had graduate de grees (M.A. or Ph.D.). Forty-eight (24%) were high school graduates. In terms of political part y, 66 (33%) were not members of any political party and 134 belong to various political parties. There we re 56 (28%) members of the Democratic Party 35 (17.5%) members of the Grand National Party 21 (10.5%) members of the Democratic Labor Party, 14 (7%) members of the Renewal of Korea Party 6 (3%) members of the New Progressive Party and 2 (1%) members of the Liberty Forward Party Sixty-six people (33%) responded that they were not a member of any political party. Table 4-1 summarizes the demographic information of respondents. In addition to this demographic information, respondents were asked to answer their level of knowledge about the Korea-U.S. beef deal in 2008. A Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (I dont know it at all) to 7 (I know it very well ) was used for this question. On average, respondents perceived that they knew the Korea-U.S. beef deal to some degree

PAGE 34

34 Table 4-1. Descriptions of Samples Variable N Frequency Percentage Population16 Sex 200 Male Female 93 107 46.5 % 53.5 % 23,465,650 (49.8%) 23,575,784 (50.2%) Age 200 20 29 30 39 40 49 50 59 78 63 47 11 39.5 % 31.5 % 23.5 % 5.5 % 7,333,970 (15.6%) 8,209,067 (17.5%) 8,023,940 (17.1%) 5,133,735 (10.9%) Occupation 200 Student Sales person Office man Governmental official Housewife Expert official Enterprise owner Engineer Farmer 79 37 19 17 17 15 10 5 1 39.5 % 18.5 % 9.5 % 8.5 % 8.5 % 7.5 % 5.0 % 2.5 % 0.5 % 3,311,185 (7.0%) 3,144,319 (6.7%) 692,733 (1.5%) 3,644,511 (7.7%) 14,818,754 (31.5%) 1,928,336 (4.1%) 2,052,884 (4.4%) Education 200 High school diploma Bachelors degree Masters degree Ph.D. degree 48 114 22 16 24.0 % 57.0 % 11.0 % 8.0 % 14,082,458 (37.6%) 12,279,335 (32.8%) 939,074 (2.5%) 220,458 (0.6%) Political Party 200 The Democratic Party The Grand National Party The Democratic Labor Party The Renewal of Korea Party The New Progressive Party The Liberty Forward Party No political party 56 35 21 14 6 2 66 28.0 % 17.5 % 10.5 % 7.0 % 3.0 % 1.0 % 33.0 % Table 4-2. The respondents level of knowledge about the crisis Responses Frequency Valid Percent Cumulative Percent 1 (I dont know the crisis at all.) 1 .5 .5 2 1 .5 1.0 3 17 8.5 9.5 4 (moderate) 72 36.0 45.5 5 50 25.0 70.5 6 36 18.0 88.5 7 (I know the crisis very well.) 23 11.5 100.0 Total 200 100.0 100.0 16 Korean Statistical Information Service (2005). Retrieved on June 29, 2009 from www.kosis.kr

PAGE 35

35 (average = 4.84). Seventy-two (36%) respondent s described their knowledge about the KoreaU.S. beef deal as moderate, 109 (54.5%) perceived that they knew about it more than average and 19 (8.5%) responded that they had little or no knowledge of the Korea-U.S. beef deal (See table 4-2). Those who responded were also questioned a bout the media outlets they used to get information about the Korea-U.S. beef deal during this crisis. As s hown in table 4-3, 123 respondents (61.5%) received information about th e crisis by watching television, showing that television is a still powerful mass medium fo r people. In addition, 62 respondents (31%) get information throughout the Internet, followe d by newspapers (12 respondents, 6%). Table 4-3. The media that respondents mainly used to get the information about the crisis Responses Frequency Valid Percent Television 123 61.5 Newspaper 12 6.0 Internet 62 31.0 Radio 1 .5 Magazine 1 .5 Conversation with other people 1 .5 Total 200 100 They also were asked to respond whether or not they received an official announcement, a newsletter, a position letter, or any other information sources a bout the crisis from the Korean government. Almost all respondents (80.5%) answered that they did not get official information from the government during the crisis. Among re spondents, only 12 (6%) people replied that they were given official information from the government. Descriptive Statistics The means and standard deviations of all m easurem ent items were analyzed to figure out publics general perceptions of (1 ) severity of the crisis, (2) g overnments crisis communication, (3) relationships quality outco mes, and (4) support for the government and president.

PAGE 36

36 Table 4-4. The publics perception about the governments official information Frequency Valid Percent 1 (I did not get any official information from the government during the crisis) 117 58.5 2 22 11.0 3 22 11.0 4 (moderate) 27 13.5 5 6 3.0 6 4 2.0 7 (I regularly receive official information from the government) 2 1.0 Total 200 100.0 Research Question 1: Severity of the Crisis First, regarding control of the crisis, re spondents were asked to answer the question ranging from 1 (totally uncontro llable by the government) to 7 ( totally controllable by the government). Second, the locus of the crisis ranged from 1 (totally outs ide the government) to 7 (totally the government). Third, the sustainab ility of the crisis was measured by using the scale ranging from 1 (it was not a frequent a nd repeated crisis.) to 7 (the crisis happens continuously.). Thus, a low score for each of the items meant low level of crisis severity while a high score meant high severity. On average, the public agreed that the crisis was someth ing that the government could control (M = 4.9, SD = 1.6) and caused by the g overnment (M = 5.4, SD = 1.2), as shown in table 4-5. The public also thought th at this sort of crisis often happened in the past. (M = 4.6, SD = 1.5). According to Coombs & Holladay (1996), pub lics are likely to perceive a crisis as more severe when (1) a crisis is something that the organization can control, (2) an organization is responsible for a crisis, and (3) th e sustainability of the crisis is frequent and repeated. Regarding these descriptive statistics, respondents ge nerally perceived the crisis as severe. In terms of the control of th e crisis, 58.5 percent of respondents answered that the crisis was something that the government could control while 19.5 percent resp onded that it was an

PAGE 37

37 uncontrollable crisis. With respect to the locus of the crisis, 72 pe rcent of respondents agreed that the crisis was caused by the government. Twenty-four percent of respondents answered that both the government and the public were responsible for the crisis; only 4 pe rcent of respondent answered that the crisis was not the governme nts responsibility. Over 50 percent of person thought that similar crises happened frequently in the past while 20.5 percent perceived that they did not happen repeatedly. In summary, respondents perceived a high level of crisis severity and many of them agreed that the government was responsible for the crisis. Table 4-5. Respondents percep tions of crisis severity N Min. Max. Mean S.E. S.D. Variance Control of the crisis 200 1 7 4.87 .112 1.578 2.489 Locus (responsibility) of the crisis 200 1 6 5.44 .088 1.239 1.534 Sustainability of the crisis 200 1 7 4.56 .107 1.516 2.298 Research Question 2: Governments Crisis Communication Government crisis communication during th e crisis was measured by using three different constructs: (1) relationship mainte nance strategies suggested by Hon and Grunig (1999), (2) crisis communication strategies suggested by Coombs (1998), and (3) overall communication evaluation measurements devel oped by the researcher for this study. To begin with, as shown in table 4-6, th e mean score for the total relationship maintenance strategies during the crisis was 2.3 (SD = 1.1). All mean scores for six relationship maintenance strategies were less than 3; all median scores for them were 2; and the frequent responses were 1 (strongly disagree) or 2( disagree). Respondents normally perceived the governments communication during the crisis as as ymmetrical; meaning that they believed that the government did not make an effort to mainta in relationships with them during the crisis.

PAGE 38

38 Table 4-6. Descriptive statistics for re lationship maintenance strategies Variables Mean SD Relationship Maintenance Strategies (N = 200) 2.33 1.1 Access 2.26 1.0 Q 1. The government provides the public with adequate contact information related to the crisis. 2.55 1.3 Q 2. The government provides the public op portunities to meet officials to get information about the crisis. 2.21 1.2 Q 3. When the public has questions or concerns about the crisis, the government is willing to answer the inquiries. 2.28 1.2 Q 4. The government provides the public with adequate contact information for specific staff on specific issues related to the crisis. 2.00 1.2 Positivity 2.15 1.1 Q 5. Receiving regular communications from the government during the crisis is beneficial to the public. 2.25 1.5 Q 6. The governments communication relate d to the crisis with the public is courteous. 2.06 1.1 Q 7. The government willingly attempts to communicate with the public during the crisis. 2.12 1.3 Q 8. The government is cooperative when handling disagreements with the public during the crisis. 2.18 1.3 Openness 2.43 1.2 Q 9. The governments media relations efforts are a valuable source of information for the public about the crisis. 2.60 1.4 Q 10. The government shares enough information with the public about the governments cris is management. 2.26 1.3 Q 11. The government offers to meet with the public so the public can communicate its opinions about the crisis to the government. 2.31 1.3 Q 12. The issue briefings the government provides help the public understand the crisis. 2.54 1.4 Assurance 2.42 1.3 Q 13. The government makes a genuine effo rt to provide responses to the publics concerns about the crisis. 2.49 1.4 Q 14. The government communicates the importance of the public during the crisis. 2.51 1.6 Q 15. The governments crisis management process allows the public adequate opportunity to propose a solution. 2.33 1.3 Q 16. When the public raises concerns related to the crisis, the government takes these concerns seriously. 2.35 1.4 Networking 2.52 1.2 Q 17. The government effectively builds co alitions with groups to manage the crisis. 2.66 2.4 Q 18. The coalitions that the organization forms with other groups contribute to managing the crisis effectively. 1.32 1.3 Sharing of tasks 2.27 1.3 Q 19. The government works with the public to develop solutions to the crisis. 2.26 1.4 Q 20. The government effectively shares in e ffort with the public to prevent future crises. 2.28 1.5

PAGE 39

39 Among the six relationship maintenance strategies, the respondents rated networking the highest (M = 2.5, SD = 1.2) and positivity the lowest (M = 2.2, SD = 1.1). In terms of access respondents disagreed th at they could access the information of the governments crisis management process and express their opinion a bout the crisis (M = 2.3, SD = 1.0). Respondents rate d all measures of access as less than 3, meaning th at the government did not provide them adequate cont act information or op portunities to meet official s related to the crisis. The mean score for the measure which asked whether the government prov ided the public with adequate contact information for specific issues related to the crisis was the lowest (M = 2.0, SD = 1.2). Many respondents also rated each measure of positivity as less than 3. They did not agree that the government made an effort to willi ngly communicate with them about the crisis. The question whether the governments communication re lated to the crisis is courteous showed the lowest mean score (M = 2.1, SD = 1.1). With respect to openness respondents believed that the government was not open and honest with them in the crisis. They especially di sagreed most with the id ea that the government shared enough information with th e public about its management of the crisis (M = 2.3, SD = 1.3). Respondents perceived assurance low as well. Many respo ndents believed that the government did not make an effort to assure them that they would effectively manage the crisis. The mean score for question regarding the publics opportunity to propose a solution (M = 2.3, SD = 1.3) was the lowest. In regard to networking more than 70 percent of res pondents disagreed with the idea that the government put forth efforts to build networks or coalitions to effectively repair the crisis. Only eight percent of respondents perceived that the government effectively built coalitions with other groups and the coal itions contributed to managing the crisis.

PAGE 40

40 About 40 percent of respondents rated two questi ons regarding sharing of tasks as 1 (totally disagree) and about 25 percent of respondents rated them 2 (disagree). Only 7.5 percent of people agreed that the governmen ts shared effort in managing the crisis. To see whether respondents po litical party influenced thei r perceptions of relationship maintenance strategies, one-way ANOVA (analysi s of variance) was conducted. Because the number of respondents who support for the Liberty Forward Party (n=2)or the New Progressive Party (n=6) was very small, the researcher collapsed all of the political parties into three groups the conservative party, the progressive party, and no political party based on the political inclination of the original groups. Table 4-7. Mean and S.D. of RMS base d on the respondents political party N Mean S.D. The conservative party 37 2.92 1.06 The progressive party 66 0.98 0.98 No political party 97 1.05 1.05 Total 200 1.05 1.05 P<.05 According to the results from the ANOVA test, respondents perceptions of relationship maintenance strategies during the crisis were si gnificantly different among different political parties, as seen in table 4-7 (F = 7.637, p < 0.05). The result of the Scheffe Post Hoc test showed that there were significant mean differences be tween the conservative party and the progressive and no political party. The Gove rnment Administration is the Grand National Party one of the conservative parties in South Korea. However, the mean difference between the progressive party and no political party was not statistically signifi cant. In other words, re spondents who support the conservative parties were more likely to perceive the governments crisis communication efforts relationship maintenance strategies in this st udy as positive than respondents who support the

PAGE 41

41 progressive parties or no political party. Thus, this means that re spondents political party is a significant variable that affects their perceptions of relationship maintenance strategies overall. In addition to these relationship maintenan ce strategies, responde nts were asked to answer whether or not they agree with se ven questions regarding crisis communication strategies: attack the accuser, de nial, excuse, justification, ingr atiation, corrective action, and full apology. According to the mean scores for each stra tegies as shown in tabl e 4-8, justification was the highest (M = 5.06, SD = 1.7), meaning that respondents agreed most, followed by excuse (M = 4.84, SD = 1.7), denial (M = 4.49, SD = 1.9), ingratiation (M = 4.44, SD = 1.8), and attack the accuser, (M = 4.14, SD = 2.0). Respondents disagr eed with both full apology (M = 2.21, SD = 1.4) and corrective action (M = 2.90, SD = 1.3). This result implies that respondents believe d that the government did not take full responsibility and ask forgiveness for the crisis. Rather, they perc eived that the government tried to minimize the damage from the crisis and the governments responsibility. Therefore, it was found that respondents thought that the governments crisis communicatio n strategies were defensive or asymmetrical rather than accommodative or symmetrical. Table 4-8. Descriptive statistics for crisis communication strategies Attack Denial Excuse Justification Ingratiation Corrective Apology N 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 Mean 4.14 4.49 4.84 5.06 4.44 2.90 2.21 S.E. 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 Median 4.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.00 2.00 Mode 6 5 6 6 5 3 1 S.D 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.694 1.8 1.3 1.4 Finally, respondents were aske d to evaluate the governme nts overall communication during the crisis. On average, their percepti ons of governments communication were negative rather than positive (See table 4-9). They beli eved that the governments communication during

PAGE 42

42 the crisis was not effective (M = 2.19, SD = 1.34), successful (M = 2.22, SD = 1.30), moral (M = 2.52, SD = 1.53), desirable (M = 2.29, SD = 1.37), or proper (M = 2.26, SD = 1.42). Table 4-9. Respondents overall evaluati on of government crisis communication Overall evaluation Effective Successful Moral Desirable Proper Mean 2.29 2.19 2.22 2.52 2.29 2.26 Median 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 Mode 1 1 1 1 1 1 SD 1.270 1.339 1.295 1.527 1.365 1.421 Variance 1.614 1.793 1.677 2.331 1.863 2.020 Research Question 3: Government-Public Re lationships (Relationship Quality Outcomes ) The mean score for the total relationshi p quality outcomes was 2.50 (SD = 1.13), which refers to a negative evaluation by the respondents regarding their relationship with the government. As shown in table 4-10, the mean valu es for the relationship quality indicators were all less than 3: control mutu ality was 2.57 (SD = 1.13), trust was 2.55 (SD = 1.12), commitment was 2.49 (SD = 1.28), and satisfaction was 2.38 (SD = 1.16). Mean scores for statements of each relationship quality indicators we re all less than 4, m eaning that respondents generally perceived their relationships with the government as negative. Specifically, about 80 percent of respondents totally, moderately, or somewhat disagreed with statements regarding control mutuality (mode and median scores of all statements fell within the 1 3 range). Only five perc ent of respondents agreed with the statement, The government really listens to what the public has to say and four percent of respondents agree with the statement, The government gives publics enough say in the decision-making process. Overall, respondents believed that they had a little power to influence the governments decision-making. The respondents perceptions of trust toward the government also were analyzed. Statistical results showed that respondents generally perceive d low level of trust. About 80

PAGE 43

43 percent of respondents perceptions of trust were below the aver age, 4. Only eight percent of respondents answered above the average in te rms of their trust toward the government. Table 4-10. Descriptive statistics for relationship quality outcomes Variables Mean SD Relationship Quality Outcomes (N = 200) 2.50 1.13 Control Mutuality 2.57 1.13 Q The government and public are attentive to what each other says. 2.77 1.36 Q The government believes the opinions of the public are legitimate. 2.41 1.30 Q In dealing with the public, the go vernment has a tendency to throw its weight around.17 3.01 1.32 Q. The government really listens to what the public has to say. 2.34 1.25 Q. The government gives publics enough say in the decision-making process. 2.30 1.25 Trust 2.55 1.12 Q. The government treats the public fairly. 2.38 1.35 Q. Whenever the government makes an important decision, the public knows the government will be concerned about the public. 2.36 1.32 Q. The government can be relied on to keep its promises. 2.48 1.37 Q. The government takes the opinions of the public into account when making decisions. 2.39 1.32 Q. The government has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do. 3.07 1.64 Q. The public feels very confident about the governments skills. 2.67 1.55 Q. The public trusts the government. 2.51 1.56 Commitment 2.49 1.28 Q. The public believes that the governm ent is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to the public. 2.61 1.43 Q. The public believes that the governm ent wants to maintain a relationship with the public. 2.68 1.44 Q. There is a long-lasting bond between the government and the public. 2.67 1.59 Q. The public values its relationship with the current government more than previous government. 2.22 1.45 Q. The public has an attachment or a loyalty to the government.18 2.28 1.44 Satisfaction 2.38 1.16 Q. The public is happy with the government. 1.95 1.07 Q. Both the government and the public benefit from the relationship. 2.33 1.35 Q. The public is happy in its inte ractions with the government. 2.19 1.26 Q. The public is pleased with th e relationship the government has established with the public. 2.23 1.33 Q. The public enjoys dealing with the government. 3.23 1.68 17 Hon & Grunig (1999)s original item was a reverse-coding statement. However, in this study, this statement was changed when it is translated in to Korean and reverse-coding was not adopted. 18 This item replaced the original statement, The public would rather work together with the organization than not, when it was translated into Korean.

PAGE 44

44 More than 70 percent of respondents al so disagreed with statements regarding commitment Mean scores for each statement showed that many respondents did not have a commitment to the relations hips with the government. In terms of satisfaction mean values for each statement were comparatively low. Many respondents strongly disagreed with the statement, The public is happy with the government. Only 5 (2.5 %) respondents answered that they agreed with it; there were no people who answered six (agree) or seven (totally agree ). Overall, this result showed that respondents were not satisfied with the re lationships with the government. Support for the Government and the President As indicated in tab le 4-11, there was a mean value difference before the crisis happened (M = 3.53, SD = 1.44) and after the crisis (M = 2.44, SD = 1.38) in terms of support for the government. Before the crisis happened, 43.5 pe rcent of respondents were below the middle point, 34.5 percent were moderate and 32 percent were above the middle point. However, 74.5 percent of respondents rated their support for the government after th e crisis less than four and only 5.5 percent of respondents rated more than four. Similarly, the degree of support for the president Myung-bak Lee was different before the crisis happened and after the cris is happened. The mean score for support for the president before the crisis was 3.14 (SD = 1.79). However, the sup port for the president af ter the crisis was 2.11 (SD = 1.41). There were 23 percent of respondents who supported the president before the crisis happened, while only 6.5 percent of respondents after the crisis. Each respondents perception before and afte r the crisis was computed. On average, the mean value of support for the government was dropped to 1.09 after the crisis happened and support for the president was droppe d to 1.04. Specifically, the leve l of support for the government among 118 respondents (59 %) d ecreased after the crisis happened; 69 (34.5 %) respondents

PAGE 45

45 showed no difference. However, 13 respondents (6.5 %) rated higher support after the crisis than before the crisis. In regard to support for the pres ident, the result was simila r to the support for the government. The level of support for the presid ent among 101 respondent s (50.5%) decreased; 95 respondents (47.5%) were the sa me; and four respondents (2 %) showed increased support. In summary, the respondents overall support for the government a nd the president were under moderate both before and after the crisis happened. However, the degree of respondents support for the government decreased by 1.09 and th e president by 1.04 on average, meaning that respondents support for the government and presid ent slightly decrease d after the crisis happened. Table 4-11. Respondents support for the government Support for the government before the crisis Support for the government after the crisis Support for the president before the crisis Support for the president after the crisis N 200 200 200 200 Mean 3.53 2.44 3.14 2.11 S.E. .101 .097 .126 .100 Median 4.00 2.00 3.00 2.00 Mode 4 1 1 1 S.D. 1.435 1.377 1.785 1.409 Variance 2.060 1.895 3.186 1.984 Range 6 6 6 6 Minimum 1 1 1 1 Maximum 7 7 7 7 Sum 705 487 628 421 Reliability of Measurement Items In this study, m ultiple items were used to measure relationship maintenance strategies, overall evaluations of th e governments crisis communication, an d relationship quality outcomes. To identify whether these multiple items were co nsistent and reliable, Cronbach s alpha analyses were conducted using the SPSS pr ogram. In regard to Cronbach alpha, .70 is regard ed as a minimum standard of reliability; .80 as a very reliable s cale; and .90 as an excel lent scale (Kline, 2005).

PAGE 46

46 In terms of relationship maintenance strategies, access, positivity, openness, and assurance were measured using four items and networking and sharing of tasks were measured using two items. Cronbachs alpha for relationship maintena nce strategies showed that all indicators were very consistent and reliable (access = .86; positivity = .90; openness = .90; assurance = .91; networking = .83; sharing of tasks = .87). Respondents overall evaluati ons of the governments communication were measured by using 5 items: effectiveness, success, morality, desirability, and appropriateness. The Cronbach s alpha for communication evaluati on items was .95, which is exce llent in terms of reliability. In addition, multiple measuremen t of relationship quality outcom es also were found to be excellent in that the Cronbach s alpha( )s for all four indicators were higher than .90. The Cronbachs alpha( ) for control mutuality measured by fi ve items was .91; trust measured by seven items was .94; commitment measured by fi ve items was .92; and satisfaction measured by five items was .91. Thus, all of multiple items used in the main survey had internal consistency. Measurement Model Validity Test: Factor Analysis Exploratory factor analyses (EFA) and confirmatory fact or analysis (CFA) for all measurement items were conducted to empirically examine relationship maintenance strategies and relationship quality outcomes suggested by Hon & J. Grunig (1999). During the first phase, EFA with items for relationship maintenance stra tegies (access, positiv ity, openness, assurance, networking, and sharing of tasks) and relations hip quality outcomes (control mutuality, trust, commitment, and satisfaction) were separately conducted to see whether items for each indicator were extracted as one indicator. During the s econd phase, EFA was conducted by using all items for relationship maintenance strate gies at once, and then, all items for the relationship quality outcomes. Finally, CFA were conducted based on the result of EFA.

PAGE 47

47 Relationship Maintenance Strategies First, the results of EFA showed that relati onship maintenance strategies consist of two factors instead of six as shown in table 412. Access, positivity, and openness were extracted under one factor: this means that the respondents perceived each of these dimensions as measuring a similar concept. Similarly, assura nce, networking, and sharing of tasks were extracted under the other factor. Thus, based on the results, these tw o dimensions were redefined as symbolic two-way symmetrical co mmunication and behavioral two-way symmetrical communication. Specifically, factor 1 was redefined as symbolic two-way symmetrical communication because these indicators (access, positivity, and openness) measured whethe r the government listened to the public, and to represent symmetrical communication effort during th e crisis. Factor 2 was redefined as behavioral two-way symmetrical communicati on because these indicators (assurance, networking, and sharing of tasks) generally measured the governments behavi oral effort to repair the crisis by assuring the public, building networks, and sharing tasks. These two dimensions (symbolic two-way symmetrical communicati on and behavioral two-way symmetrical communication) explained 69.49% of the variance in the relationship maintenance strategies. As the second step, CFA was conducted base d on the result of EFA by using the AMOS program to determine if this studys measurem ent model adequately fits the data. CFA was conducted with (1) the newly hypothesized factor model based on the EFA and (2) the previous measurement model suggested by Hon & J. Grunig (1999) to assess which model is more adequate to construct relationship maintenance strategies. As shown in table 4-13, it was found that the two specified models had construct validity as the standardized regression weights ( ) were significant. Fit indexes of both models were

PAGE 48

48 Table 4-12. The result of EFA for re lationship maintenance strategies Items Reliability Component Relationship Maintenance Strategies (N = 200) .968 Factor1 Factor2 Access 2. The government provides the public opportunities to meet officials to get information about the crisis. .788 Access 1. The government provides the public with adequate contact information related to the crisis. .787 Positivity 7. The government willingly attempts to communicate with the public during the crisis. .760 Access 4. The government provides the public with adequate contact information for specific staff on speci fic issues related to the crisis. .731 Openness 10. The government shares enough information with the public about the governments crisis management. .709 Access 3. When the public has questions or concerns about the crisis, the government is willing to answer the inquiries. .688 Positivity 8. The government is cooperative when handling disagreements with the pu blic during the crisis. .675 Positivity 6. The governments comm unication related to the crisis with the public is courteous. .645 Openness 11. The government offers to meet with the public so the public can communicate its opinions about the crisis. .643 Positivity 5. Receiving regular communications from the government during the crisis is beneficial to the public. .637 Openness 12. The issue briefings the government provides help the public understand the crisis. .597 Openness 9. The governments media relations efforts are a valuable source of information for th e public about the crisis. .476 Networking 18. The coalitions that the organization forms with other groups contribute to managing the crisis effectively. .814 Networking 17. The government e ffectively builds coalitions with groups to manage the crisis. .753 Assurance 16. When the public raises concerns related to the crisis, the government takes these concerns seriously. .742 Sharing of tasks 19. The government works with the public to develop solutions to the crisis. .718 Assurance 15. The governments crisis management process allows the public adequate opportunity to propose a solution. .716 Sharing of tasks 20. The government effectively shares in effort with the public to prevent future crises. .705 Assurance 13. The government makes a genuine effort to provide responses to the publics concerns about the crisis. .683 Assurance 14. The government communicates the importance of the public during the crisis. .676 Eigen Values 12.717 1.181 Percent of Variance (%) 68.583 5.907 Cumulative Percent of Variance (%) 68.583 69.489 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis Rotation converged in 3 iterations

PAGE 49

49 statistically significant except RMSEA for the two f actor model. It means that both models (1) symbolic and behavioral two-way symmetri cal communication and (2 ) access, positivity, openness, assurance, networking, and sharing of tasks are generally acceptable. However, several fit indexes indicated that the six-measurement model of relationship maintenance strategies better expl ains the data than the newly proposed 2-factor model (see table 4-13). Table 4-13. Fit measures for relationship maintenance stra tegies measurement model Fit index 2-measurement model 6-meausrement model Criteria Absolute fit indexes GFI .822 .901 .90 RMSEA .091 .053 .10 Incremental fit indexes NFI .886 .942 .90 CFI .925 .978 .90 TLI .916 .971 .90 IFI .926 .978 .90 According to these fit indexe s, the six-measurement model is reasonable because these data satisfied the fit criteria for CFI .96 and RMSEA .06 (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Therefore, six indicators access, positivity, openness, assurance, networking, and sharing of tasks should be constructed separately to measure relati onship maintenance strategies although respondents perceived (1) access, positivity, and openness as on e factor and (2) assurance, networking, and sharing of tasks as another factor. Relationship Quality Outcomes (Government-Public Relationships) As shown in table 4-14, relationship quality out comes consisted of tw o factors instead of four based on the EFA. The result of EFA condu cted by using all items of relationship quality outcomes showed that relational symmetry is one factor and emotional connectedness is another factor. Specifically, factor one was compos ed of control mutuality and trust, as relational symmetry because these indicators measured publics pe rceptions whether their relationship with

PAGE 50

50 Table 4-14. The result of EFA fo r relationship quality outcomes Items Reliability Component Relationship Quality Outcomes (N = 200) Factor1Factor2 CM 5. The government gives the public enough say in the decision-making process. .812 CM 4. The government really liste ns to what the public has to say. .794 T 3. The government can be relied on to keep its promises. .789 T 4. The government takes the opinions of the public into account when making decisions. .784 T 1. The government treats the public fairly. .772 T 2. Whenever the government ma kes an important decision, the public knows the government will be concerned about the public. .757 T 5. The government has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do. .733 CM 2 The government believes the opinions of the public are legitimate. .723 T 6. The public feels very conf ident about the governments skills. .722 CM 3 In dealing with the public, the government has a tendency to throw its weight around. .666 T 7. The public trusts the government. .647 CM 1 The government and public are attentive to what each other says. .603 S 3. The public is happy in its intera ctions with the government. .829 C 5. The public has an attachment or a loyalty to the government. .829 S 2. Both the government and the public benefit from the relationship. .783 S 4. The public is pleased with the relationship the government has established with the public. .756 C 4. The public values its relationship with the current government more than the previous government. .745 S 1. The public is happy with the government. .741 C 3. There is a long-lasting bond between the government and the public. .725 S 5. The public enjoys dealing with the government. .600 C 1. The public believes that the government is trying to maintain a long-term commitment to the public. .569 C 2. The public believes that the government wants to maintain a relationship with the public. .547 Eigen Values 14.695 1.207 Percent of Variance (%) 66.795 5.486 Cumulative Percent of Variance (%) 66.795 72.280 Extraction Method: Principa l Component Analysis. a. Rotation converged in 3 iterations.

PAGE 51

51 government is symmetrical. Factor two was co mposed of commitment and satisfaction, which was termed emotional connectedness in that these items were related to the publics feeling that it was connected to the government. These two factors (relational symmetry and emotional connectedness) explained 72.28% of the variance in relationship quality outcomes. Based on this result, CFA was conducted to assess whether the two factor-measurement model and the four items model we re appropriate for the data. The several fit indexes showed that the four itmes model of relati onship quality outcomes (control mu tuality, trust, commitment, and satisfaction) better explained the data than the newly constructed 2-factor model (See table 4-15). Therefore, Hon & Gurnigs (1999) four dimensio ns of relationship quality outcomes, which were considered more statistically adequate, were us ed to test research hypotheses in this study. Table 4-15. Fit measures for rela tionship quality outcomes model Fit index 2-measurement model 4-meausrement model Criteria Absolute fit indexes GFI .693 .836 .90 RMSEA .135 .084 .10 Incremental fit indexes NFI .816 .913 .90 CFI .849 .947 .90 TLI .832 .936 .90 IFI .850 .947 .90 Correlations and Regressions Hypothesis 1: The Associations between Crisis Severity and GPRs Hypothesis 1 tested whether there was a nega tive association between crisis severity and governm ent-public relationships. The composite i ndex of crisis severity and government-public relationships was employed for co rrelation analysis to test hypot hesis 1. Each of the items for crisis severity (control of the crisis, the locus of th e crisis, and the sustainab ility of the crisis) also were used to analyze the associations with government-public relationships.

PAGE 52

52 As shown in table 4-16, the results confirme d hypothesis 1, indicati ng that the publics perceptions of severity is ne gatively associated with its perceptions of government-public relationships (F = -0.187, P < 0.01). However, the association wa s weak. Specifically, responsibility of the crisis was th e only variable that is significan tly correlated with governmentpublic relationships (F = 0.450, P < 0.01). Therefor e, government-public relationships were not significantly associated with the control of th e crisis and the sustainability of the crisis. Table 4-16. Correlations between crisis severity and GPRs Crisis severity control Responsibility sustainability GPRs Pearson Correlation -.187 (**) .035 -.450 (**) -.015 Sig. (1-tailed) .004 .312 .001 .417 N 200 200 200 200 ** correlation was significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). Hypothesis 2: The Associations betw een Crisis Communication and GPRs Hypothesis 2 tested whether there was a positive association between symmetrical communication during th e crisis and government-public relationshi ps. To test hypothesis 2, onetailed correlations using the composite index variab les of relationship maintenance strategies and relationship quality outcomes were conducted (S ee table 4-17). According to the results, hypothesis 2 was supported because a significant positive correlation between relationship maintenance strategies and relationship quality outcomes was found (F = 0.791, P < 0.01). Although there is no universally accepted standard, a value that ex ceeds .30 is generally regarded as indicating a correlation between variables. As the coefficient ( ) showed, the correlation was strong. Table 4-17. Correlations between crisis communication and GPRs Relationship Quality Outcomes Relationship Maintenance Strategies Pearson Correlation .791 (**) Sig. (1-tailed) .001 N 200 ** correlation was significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed).

PAGE 53

53 To investigate the associations among each indicator of relationship maintenance strategies and relationship quali ty outcomes, multiple regressi on analyses were conducted. As shown in table 4-18, assurance ( = .347, t = 3.418), sharing of tasks ( = .297, t = 3.004), and positivity ( = .203, t = 2.575) had influences on the co mposite index of relationship quality outcomes (Adjusted R = .644). Table 4-18. The associations among each indicator of RMS and GPRs D.V. I.V. B S.E. Beta t Sig. Tolera nce VIF Adjusted R GPRs Assurance 6.850 2.004 .347 3.418.001 .174 5.756 .644 (F = 121.023, p = .001) Sharing of tasks 5.616 1.869 .297 3.004.003 .183 5.474 Positivity 4.486 1.742 .203 2.575.011 .287 3.486 Control Mutuali ty Assurance .197 .096 .222 2.040.043 .166 6.015 .608 (F = 78.158, p = .001) Positivity .271 .082 .274 3.308.001 .287 3.489 Networking .132 .055 .143 2.403.017 .560 1.787 Sharing of tasks .192 .089 .227 2.162.032 .179 5.597 Trust Assurance .284 .106 .285 2.673.008 .174 5.756 .607 (F = 103.353, p = .001) Positivity .275 .092 .247 2.977.003 .287 3.486 Sharing of tasks .279 .099 .293 2.822.005 .183 5.474 Commit ment Assurance .460 .106 .454 4.348.001 .202 4.951 .562 (F = 128.626, p = .001) Sharing of tasks .309 .101 .319 3.054.003 .202 4.951. Satisfac tion Assurance .370 .104 .402 3.543.001 .202 4.951 .482 (F = 93.701, p = .001) Specifically, the influence of relationship maintenance strategies on control mutuality was significant (p < 0.05); a nd the explanatory power was 61 percent (Adjusted R = .608). Especially, assurance ( = .222, t = 2.040), positivity ( = .274, t = 3.308), networkin g ( = .143, t = 2.403), and sharing of tasks ( = .227, t = 2.162) were significan t factors in this association. Table 4-18 also showed that the significant (p < 0.05) influence of relationship maintenance strategies on trust (Adjusted R = .607), assurance ( = .285, t = 2.673), positivity ( = .247, t = 2.977), and sharing of tasks ( = .293, t = 2.822) were significant in this association. In terms of

PAGE 54

54 associations between relationshi p maintenance strategies and commitment only assurance ( = .454, t = 4.348) and sharing of tasks ( = .319, t = 3.054) were statisti cally significant (Adjusted R = .562). Similarly, assurance ( = .402, t = 3.543) and sharing of tasks ( = .402, t = 2.777) had significant impact on satisfaction (Adjusted R = .482). The results showed that assurance and sharing of tasks strongly affected the government-public relationship. Thus, the government should focus on assuring the public that it effectively managed the crisis and sharing effo rts to improve relationship quality outcomes. There was no independent variab le which was over 10 of the vari ance-inflating factors (VIF). Thus, multicollinearity violation was not observed. In addition to this associ ation between relationship maintenance strategies and relationship quality outcomes, the association between crisis communication strategies and relationship quality outcomes also were exam ined. As shown in table 4-19, significant correlations between crisis communication strategies and government-public relationships were found except for attack the accuser (F = -.100, p > 0.001). Government -public relationships were positively correlated to corrective action (r = .636, p < 0.05) and full apology (r = .621, p < 0.05), which were accommodative. These correlations be tween relationship qual ity and accommodative strategies, which are related to symmetrical communication, were very strong. On the contrary, government-public relationships we re negatively correlated to de fensive communication such as denial (r = -.338, p < 0.05), excuse (r = -.402, p < 0.05), justification (r = -.274, p < 0.05), and ingratiation (r = -.197, p < 0.05). According to the results, positive government-public relationships could be strengthened if the govern ment adopted accommodative strategies rather than defensive strategies during the crisis.

PAGE 55

55 Finally, the association between overall evaluation of government communication during the crisis and governmentpublic relationships were anal yzed. As shown in table 4-20, there is a significant positiv e correlation between the publics evaluation of government communication during the crisis and its perceptions of governme nt-public relationships (F = .601, p < 0.05). Table 4-19. Correlations between crisis communication strategies and GPRs Attack the accuser Denial Excuse Justifica tion Ingratiat ion Correcti ve Action Full Apolog y GPR Pearson Correlation -.100 -.338(*) -.402(*) -.274( *) -.197(*) .636(*) .621(*) Sig. (2tailed) .160 .001 .001 .001 .005 .001 .001 N 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 correlation was significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). Table 4-20. Correlations between the govern ments overall comm unication and GPRs Overall evaluation of the government communication GPR Pearson Correlation .601 (**) Sig. (1-tailed) .001 N 200 ** correlation was significant at the 0.01 level (1-tailed). Hypothesis 3: The Associations between GPRs and Support for the Government Hypothesis 3 investigated the association between government-public relationships and support for the government. As shown in table 4-21, government-public relationships and the publics support for the government was positively correlated (f = .781, p < 0.05). The correlation results showed that this association after the cris is was more strong than the association before the crisis happened (F = .429, p < 0.05). Similarly, the association be tween government-public rela tionships and the publics support for the president also was positively co rrelated (F = .721, p < 0.05). Government-public

PAGE 56

56 relationships were more strongly correlated with the publics s upport for the president after the crisis than their support before the crisis (F = .470, p < 0.05). Moreover, government-public relationships we re negatively associated with a change in support for the government after th e crisis happened as shown in table 4-21 (F = -.351, p < 0.05). This means that if publics perceive governmentpublic relationships as fa vorable, their level of support for the government is diminished less than publics who perceive low GPRs. Table 4-21. The correlation between GPRs and support for the government and president Support for the government Support for the president Before the crisis After the crisis Before after Before the crisis After the crisis Beforeafter GPRs Pearson Correlation .429 (**) .781 (**) -.351(**) .470 (**) .721(**) -.132 Sig. (2tailed) .001 .001 .001 .001 .001 .062 N 200 200 200 200 200 200 ** correlation was significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

PAGE 57

57 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION In this study, crisis communication and gove rnment-public rel ationships were examined by a survey based on an actual crisis case. In this section, the results of the study are summarized; theoretical and practical implications are disc ussed; and several limitations are addressed. Summary of Results The purpose of this study was to explore the associations among vari ables the severity of the crisis, crisis communication strategi es relationship maintenance strategies, and government-public relationships based on an actual crisis. Mass protests in 2008 against the U.S. beef import into South Korea were considered a crisis for the Korean government. To examine the publics perceptions of this crisis, online community users of two major portal sites in South Korea, Naver and Daum were recruited. A total of 200 pe ople participated in this study. Before investigating research questions and hypotheses, the re liability and va lidity of all variables were tested by calculating Cronbachs coefficients and conduc ting exploratory factor analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis by using the SPSS and AMOS programs. Measures for all variables were statistically reliable and have internal consistency. CFA results demonstrated that a 6-measurement index for relationship main tenance strategies (acc ess, positivity, openness, assurance, networking, and sharing of tasks) was reasonable. In addition, government public relationships (control mutualit y, trust, commitment, and satis faction) were considered a significant model according to the results of CFA. This study sought to answer several resear ch questions. First, respondents thought the crisis mass protests against the U.S. beef im port into South Korea was something that the Korean government could control. They also agr eed that the government was responsible for the crisis and this sort of crisis happened frequently. Thus, they perceived the crisis as severe.

PAGE 58

58 Second, the publics perceptions of the govern ment crisis communication efforts during the crisis were generally negativ e: asymmetrical or defensive. In terms of the governments relationship maintenance strategies during the crisis, the mean scores for all items were low. This means that respondents disagreed that th e governments communi cation was two-way symmetrical. For crisis communication strategies respondents rated justification the highest, meaning that respondents thought the government used this strategy the most. Respondents disagreed that the government provided full a pology and corrective action during the crisis. Third, respondents pe rceptions of gove rnment-public relationships were not positive overall. Mean scores for all items control mutuality, trust, commitment, and satisfaction were low. Moreover, thei r support for the government and pr esident was decreased after the crisis happened. Hypotheses were tested by conducting correlati ons and regressions. The data analysis showed that relationship maintenance strategi es were positively corre lated with governmentpublic relationships. Specifically, assurance a nd sharing of tasks strongly affected the government-public relationships. Thus, the government should focu s on assuring the public that it effectively managed the crisis and sharing effort s to improve relationship quality outcomes that underlie the government-public relationship. In addition to this associ ation between relationship maintenance strategies and relationship quality outcomes, se veral associations between cris is communication strategies and government-public relationships were found. Government-public relationships were positively correlated to corrective action and full apology, which were accommodative or symmetrical, while GPRs were negatively correlated with defensive communication such as denial, excuse,

PAGE 59

59 justification, and ingratiation. Thus, accommodativ e strategies during the crisis could be more effective than defensive strategies to main tain favorable relationships with the public. This study also found positive correlations be tween government-public relationships and publics support for the governme nt and president. Favorable government-public relationships were negatively associated with the degree of change in support for the government before and after the crisis. Thus, maintain ing favorable relationships is important for the government to effectively manage a crisis. Theoretical and Practical Implications This resear ch has several theore tical implications in public relations scho larship in that it attempts to empirically examine th e associations among crisis communi cation strategies relationship maintenance strategies, and government-public relati onships. Despite a large number of past studies on relationships, few studi es focused on governme nt-public relationships. To develop stable government-public relationship measurement which ha s external validity, more studies should be done with a large number of appropriate samples. Moreover, this study indicates the importanc e of relationship management to overcome crises effectively. Public relations scholars have tried to identify the value of public relations for organizations. Ehling (1992) mentioned relationshi ps, not manipulation of public opinion, as key to the value of public relations Bruning and Ledingham (2000) argued that organization-public relationships can be a dominant influence in purchasing decision and consumer satisfaction. Kelly (1995) and Oneil (2007) considered str ong relationships with donors as the value of public relations for nonprofit organizations. Co ombs (2000) emphasized the importance of favorable relationships during the crisis by mentioning organization-public relationships affect the publics perceptions about the cr isis. This study also demonstrat ed relationships as a value of

PAGE 60

60 public relations by showing posit ive correlations between governm ent-public relationships and the publics support for the govern ment and the president. In addition to these theoretical implications, this study also contribu tes knowledge to the practice of public relatio ns. Many scholars and practitioners agr ee that a real crisis is the best textbook for learning crisis comm unication. This study tried to ex amine significant associations between the governments communication during a crisis and government-public relationships by focusing on an actual crisis. It also demonstrates the impor tance of two-way symmetrical communication strategies during a crisis by s howing the correlations between maintenance strategies and relationship quality outcomes: government-public relationships. Finally, this study can contribute to developing effective stra tegies and tactics based on relationship management theory. As shown in figure 5-1, control mutuality was related to positivity, assurance, and networking. Trust was associated with positivity, assurance, and sharing of tasks. Commitment and satisfaction were related to assurance and sharing of tasks. These results can be applied to public relatio ns practice to manage crises and improve relationships between an organization and publics. Because assurance and sharing of tasks are considered as significant strategies which are as sociated with dimensions of organization-public relationships, an organization shou ld focus on these strategies duri ng the crisis. Or practitioners can focus on strategies which are associated with dimensions that they want to improve. For example, public relations practit ioners should try to assure pu blics and share tasks to raise satisfaction, if the publics satisfact ion is low. With respect to trus t, practitioners should consider positivity, assurance, and sharing of tasks as important strategies. Specific tactics also should be develope d regarding each relationship maintenance strategy. First of all, the organi zation should provide offi cial information channels such as a Web

PAGE 61

61 site, blog, call center, or communication boot h so publics can access the organization and communicate with the organization about the crisis In terms of positivity, practitioners should develop some practical guidelines related to communication manner and tone to make publics perceive that the organization willingly communicates with them about the crisis. Then, members of the organization can properly and pr omptly communicate with publics when a crisis happens. With respect to openness, organization should not hide information about the crisis, meaning that members of the organization should be trained so they can consistently answer publics queries. To raise assuran ce, there should be a genuine be havioral effort for publics. In other words, an organization should try to repair damage in the crisis situation. In terms of networking, the organization might implement pa rtnering programs with other institutions to show that an organization is effectively networking with ot her groups. Finally, encouraging publics to participate in crisis management a nd sharing tasks might be helpful to overcome a crisis. Figure 5-1. Relationship management st rategies and tactics during crises

PAGE 62

62 Limitations and Future Research The most significant lim itation in this study is that its sample was not randomly selected. This study only focuses on the responses of online community users rather than a sample of the general population. In addition, survey respondents voluntarily participated in this study; thus, their level of involvement might be higher than th e general public. Therefore, it is difficult to argue that the respondents to th e survey repres ent the population. However, the purpose of this study is not to generalize the findings but to explore and investigate associations among va riables such as crisis commun ication strategies, relationship maintenance strategies, government-public relationships, and the pub lics support for the government. The results of this study confirmed significant associa tions among variables by analyzing respondents percepti ons. To generalize, future st udies should consider random sampling with a larger number of respondents. In addition, according to the results, acce ss and openness were not statistically significant, meaning that thes e strategies were not associ ated with government-public relationships. Because this finding was based on a survey result, not interview or observation, this study could not explore why this inconsiste ncy occurred. One possible reason is that online survey respondents were very familiar with accessing and getting information about the crisis throughout the Internet so they might not care much about access and openness. To further investigate this unexpected finding, more studies should be d one with different groups of respondents and qualitative methods should be used. Moreover, this study could not control extr aneous variables such as the political situation or other occurring crises because it focused on one actu al crisis: the Korea-U.S. beef deal. During the time when the researcher c onducted the main survey, the previous Korean president committed suicide because his reputation was terribly tarnished by the governments

PAGE 63

63 severe investigation into his fa milys bribery. Many Koreans were shocked. They argued that the government was responsible for his suicide by exce ssively and intentionall y exposing his bribery to the public. The situation was a critical issue while the survey was being conducted since it could affect participants survey responses. Although the questionnaire tried to restrict the crisis situation to the Korea-U.S. beef deal, some people still might have been reminded of this accident while they answered the questionnaire.

PAGE 64

64 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (ENGLISH VERSION) General Questions I am aware of a violent clash between the Ko rean government and tenants of one area in Yongsan, Seoul. (1: I dont know at all----7: I know it very well.) I mostly get information about the crisis through (1) Television News (2) Newspaper News (3 ) Internet News (4) Website or Blog (5) Magazine (6) Conversation with ot her People (7) Other Channel (___________) I received an official announcement, a news le tter, a position letter, or other information sources about the crisis fr om the Korean government. Support for the government and president: The Likert Scale Support for the government Before the crisis happened, my previous s upport for the government was (from 1 to 7) After the crisis happened, my current suppor t for the government is (from 1 to 7) Support for the president Before the crisis happened, my previous s upport for the president was (from 1 to 7) After the crisis happened, my current suppor t for the president is (from 1 to 7) The perceptions of Crisis Seve rity (Coombs & Holladay, 1996): The Semantic Scale The control of the crisis (externa l control / governments control) The crisis is something that the government could control -----could not control How much do you think that the gover nment could control the crisis? (1: totally uncontrollable by the government ----7: totally controllable by the government) The locus of the crisis (the government / th e situation): Intentionality of the crisis The crisis was caused by the government -----the crisis was not caused by the government Who is responsible for it? (1: totally outside the governme nt ----4: both parties ---7: totally the government)

PAGE 65

65 The sustainability of the crisis (frequ ent-repeated-stable / infrequent-unstable) This sort of crisis happens frequently ----This sort of crisis happens infrequently How often do crises like this happen? (1 : This was the first ----7: They happen continuously) Relationship Cultivation Strategies (Ki & Hon, 2007) : The 7-point Likert Scale Access: The degree that publics access the information of the governments crisis management process and express their opinion about the crisis The government provides the public with adequate contact informa tion related to the crisis. The government provides the pub lic opportunities to meet of ficials to get information about the crisis. When the public has questions or concerns a bout the crisis, the govern ment is willing to answer the inquiries. The government provides the public with adequate contact info rmation for specific staff on specific issues related to the crisis. Positivity: The governments efforts to willingl y communicate with publics about the crisis Receiving regular communications from the government during the crisis is beneficial to the public. The governments communication related to th e crisis with the public is courteous. The government willingly attempts to communi cate with the public during the crisis. The government is cooperative when handling disagreements with the public during the crisis. Openness: The degree that government is open and honest to its publics in the crisis situation The governments media relations efforts are a valuable source of information for the public about the crisis. The government shares enough information with the public about the governments crisis management. The government offers to meet with the public so the public can co mmunicate its opinions about the crisis to the government. The issue briefings the government provide s help the public unde rstand the crisis.

PAGE 66

66 Assurances: The governments effort to assure p ublics that they effectively manage the crisis The government makes a genuine effort to pr ovide responses to the publics concerns about the crisis. The government communicates the importa nce of the public during the crisis. The governments crisis management process allows the public adequate opportunity to propose a solution. When the public raises concerns related to the crisis, the government takes these concerns seriously. Networking: The degree of the governments effo rt to build networks or coalitions to effectively repair the crisis The government effectively builds coalitions with groups to manage the crisis. The coalitions that the organization forms w ith other groups contribute to managing the crisis effectively. Sharing of tasks: The governments shar ing of effort at managing the crisis The government works with the public to develop solutions to the crisis. The government effectively shares in effort w ith the public to prevent future crises. Total evaluation about the crisis communication The Korean governments crisis communication during the crisis was (ineffective ----effective) ( unsuccessful ----suc cessful) (improper ----proper) (immoral ----moral) (bad ----good) (undesirable ----desirable)

PAGE 67

67 Crisis Communication Stra tegies (Coombs, 1998): The 7-point Likert Scale Defensive (Asymmetrical) Accommodative (Symmetrical) Attack the Accuser Confronting the person or group who claims that a crisis exists Do you think the government tries to discredit the public? Denial Stating that no crisis exists Do you think the government denies the crisis? Excuse Minimizing the organizations responsibility fo r the crisis Do you think the government tries to minimize its responsibility? Justification Minimizing the perceived damage associated with the crisis Do you think the government tries to minimize the damage from the crisis? Ingratiation Actions are designed to make stakeholders like the organization Do you think the government tries to remind the public of the governments previous achievements or contributions to offset the crisis? Corrective Action Repairing the damage from the crisis, taking steps to prevent a repeat of the crisis, or both Do you think that the government tries to repair the damage from the crisis? Do you think that the government takes steps to prevent a repeat of the crisis? Full Apology stating that the organization takes full responsibility for the crisis and asks forgiveness for the crisis Do you think the government takes full responsibility for the crisis and asks forgiveness for the crisis?

PAGE 68

68 Government-Public Relationships : quality (Hon & Grunig, 1999): The 7-point Likert Scale Control mutuality: which parties agree on who has the rightful power to influence one another The government and public are atte ntive to what each other say. The government believes the opinions of the public are legitimate. In dealing with the public, the government has a tendency to throw its weight around. (Reverse) The government really listens to what the public has to say. The government gives publics enough sa y in the decision-making process. Trust: The level of confidence in and willingness to open oneself to the other party The government treats the public fairly. Whenever the government makes an important decision, the public knows the government will be concerned about the public. The government can be relied on to keep its promises. The government takes the opinions of the pub lic into account when making decisions. The government has the ability to ac complish what it says it will do. The public feels very confident about the governments skills. I trust the government. Commitment: each party believes that the rela tionship is worth spending energy to maintain The public believes that the government is tryi ng to maintain a long-term commitment to the public. The public believes that the government wants to maintain a relationship with the public. There is a long-lasting bond betw een the government and the public. The public values its rela tionship with the current government more than previous government. The public has an attachment or a loyalty to a government. Satisfaction: the extent to which each party f eels favorably toward the other because positive expectations about the re lationship are reinforced The public is happy with the government. Both the government and the public benefit from the relationship. The public is happy in its intera ctions with the government. The public is pleased with the relationship the government has established with the public. The public enjoys dealing with the government.

PAGE 69

69 APPENDIX B SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE (KOREAN VERSION) NO Linda Hon (College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida) (College of Journalism and Communications, University of Florida) (070) 8251-1218 I. ? (TV) / ? ( ) ( ) ( ) ?

PAGE 70

70

PAGE 71

71 ------------------------------------------------------( ) -------------------------------------( )

PAGE 72

72

PAGE 73

73

PAGE 74

74 LIST OF REFERENCES Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a Concept and Theory of OrganizationPublic Relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research 9 83-98. Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (2000). Toward a concept and th eory of organizationpublic relationships: An update. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to public relations (pp. 322). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Rela tionships between organizations and publics: Development of a multi-dimensional or ganization-public relationship scale. Public Relations Review, 25 157-170. Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (2000). Organization and ke y public relationships: Testing the influence of the relationship dimensions in a business-to-business context. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to public relations (pp. 159-173). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Coombs, W. T. (1998). An analyt ic framework for crisis situa tions: Better responses from a better understanding of the situation. Journal of Public Relations Research 10(3), 177191. Coombs, W. T. (1998). The Intern et as potential equali zer, new leverage for confronting social irresponsibility. Public Relations Review 24, 289-304. Coombs, W. T. (1999). Information and compassion in crisis responses: A te st of their effects. Journal of Public Relations Research 11(2), 125-142. Coombs, W. T. (2000). Crisis management advantages of a relational perspective. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 73-93). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Coombs, W. T. (2001). Interpersona l communications and public relations. In R. L. Heath (Ed.), Handbook of Public Relations (pp. 105-114). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Coombs, W. T. (2004). Impact of past crises on current crisis communi cation: Insights from situational crisis communication theory. Journal of Business Communication 41(3), 265289. Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: The development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163-176.

PAGE 75

75 Coombs, W. T. & Holladay, S. J. (1996). Comm unication and Attributions in a crisis: An experimental study in crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations Research 8(4), 279-295. Coombs, W. T. & Holladay, S. J. (2002). Helpin g crisis managers prot ect reputational assets: Initial tests of the situational crisis communication theory. Management Communication Quarterly 16, 165-186. Ehling, W. P. (1992). Estimating the value of public relations and communication to an organization. In J. E. Grunig, D. M. Dozier, W. P. Ehling, L. A. Grunig, F. C. Repper, & J. White (Eds.), Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (pp.617-638). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Englehardt, K. E., Sallot, L. M. & Springston, J. K. (2004). Co mpassion without blame: Testing the accident decision flow chart with the crash of ValuJet Flight 592. Journal of Public Relations Research 16(2), 127-157. Ferguson (1984, August). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational relationships as a public relations paradigm. Paper presented to the Public Relations Division, Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Co mmunication Annual Convention, Gainesville, FL. Feran-Banks, K. (2007). Crisis communications: A casebook approach (3rd Ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y.-H. (2000). From or ganizational effectiven ess to relationship indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relati ons strategies, and relationship outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham & S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 2353). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). What is an effective organization. In J. E. Grunig, D. M. Dozier, W. P. Ehling, L. A., Grunig, F. C. Repper, & J. White (Eds.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 65-90). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Han, J. H. & Jeong, J. Y. (2002). A study of effect s of organizations public relationships on the publics attribution percepti on toward crisis situation. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication, 46(2), 633-677. Heath, R.L. (1997), Strategic issues management: Organi zations and public policy challenges Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. Hon, L. C. & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations.

PAGE 76

76 Huang, Y. H. (1997). Public relations strategies, relational outcomes, and c onflict management strategies Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Maryla nd, College Park, MD. Kang, J. Y. & Cha, H. W. (2008). A study on the effect of crisis co mmunication and crisis responsibility on the change of the public relationship at a no n-profit organization. Advertising Research 2008 Winter, 10-47. Kelly, K. S. (1995). Utilizing public relations th eory to conceptualizi ng and test models of fundraising. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 72(1), 106-127. Ki, E. J., & Hon, L. C. (2007). Testing the linkages among the organization-public relationship and attitude and beha vioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19 (1). Kim, Y. (2001). Searching for the organizati on-public relationship: A valid and reliable instrument. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 78, 799-815. Kim, H. & Lee, H (2008). A study on the OPR m easurement scale reflecting Korean culture. Journal of Korean Advertising and Public Relations, 10(1), 99-139. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of st ructural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guildford Press. Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Re lationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an organization-public relationship. Public Relations Review 24, 55-65. McAuley, E., Duncan, T. E., & Russell, D. W. (1992). Measuring causal attributions: The revised causal dimension scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 18, 566-573. Miller, D. P. & Heath, R. L. (2004). Responding to crisis: A rhetorical approach to crisis communication, Mahwah, NJ: La wrence Erlbaum Associates. Mitroff, I.I., Anagnos, G. (2001), Managing crises before they happen: What every executive and manager needs to know about crisis management AMACOM, New York, NY. Mitroff, I. I. & Pearson, C. M. (1993). Crisis management: A diagnostic guide for improving your organizations crisis-preparedness. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers. Oneil, J. (2007). The link between str ong public relationships and donor support. Public Relations Review, 33, 99-102. Renn, O. (1992). Concepts of risk: A classifi cation. In S. Krimsky & D. Golding (Eds.), Social Theories of Risk (pp. 53-82). Westport, CT: Praeger.

PAGE 77

77 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Hanna Park is masters candidate at the University of Florida. She received her bachelors degree in communicatio ns from Hankuk University of Foreign Studies (S eoul, South Korea) with top honors. During her underg raduate studies, she minored in Business Administration. She also received her masters degree in Communication from Hankuk University of Foreign studies in the summer of 2008. She majored in public relations while simultaneously working for the Division of Communications. Duri ng her masters studies, she was awarded the fellowship and worked as a research assistant, a teaching assistant, and a graduate coordinator. Her research work has appeared in the Korean Journal of Advertising and the Korea Press Foundation s reports. She also presente d her research papers in se veral national conferences in the United States and South Korea. After graduation, she will stay in Gainesvill e, Florida for her doctoral studies. She has been accepted as a doctoral student and a teaching and research assistant at the University of Floridas College of Journalism and Communications with financial support.