<%BANNER%>

An Experimental Analysis of the Effect of Transparency on Charitable Nonprofit and For-Profit Business Organizations

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042826/00001

Material Information

Title: An Experimental Analysis of the Effect of Transparency on Charitable Nonprofit and For-Profit Business Organizations
Physical Description: 1 online resource (230 p.)
Language: english
Creator: AUGER,GISELLE A
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: BEHAVIORAL -- BUSINESSES -- INTENTIONS -- NONPROFITS -- PUBLIC -- RELATIONS -- TRANSPARENCY -- TRUST
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Mass Communication thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy AN EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF TRANSPARENCY ON CHARITABLE NONPROFIT AND FOR-PROFIT BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS By Giselle Andr?e Auger May 2011 Chair: Kathleen S. Kelly Co-chair: John C. Sutherland Major: Mass Communication Within the last two decades, demands for increased organizational transparency have multiplied in the government, business and nonprofit sectors, in telecommunication, financial and banking industries, and more recently, in the deep-water oil drilling. During that same time period, the number of nonprofit organizations has steadily grown, as have questions relating to their accountability and transparency to the point where the U. S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the U. S. Senate have placed increased scrutiny on the sector. Given the increased demands for and interest in the construct of transparency and the continued growth and importance of the nonprofit sector, the purpose of this experimental study was as follows: (1) to examine the effect of organizational and communicative transparency on trust and positive behavioral intentions of publics, (2) to provide comparative analysis of the effect of transparency on trust and behavioral intentions in charitable nonprofit organizations and for-profit businesses, and (3) to determine the significance of interaction among organizational transparency, communicative transparency and type of organization. Results of this study found that transparent organizations that communicate transparently have greater levels of trust and positive behavioral intentions overall. Moreover, each of the transparency constructs, organizational and communicative, have independent effects on trust and positive behavioral intentions. However, the result of comparative study between charitable nonprofit organizations and their for-profit counterparts were mixed, with the nonprofit organizations achieving higher levels of trust and behavioral intentions in most of the experimental situations and the for-profit businesses achieving higher levels of trust in the doubly non-transparent and doubly-transparent groups. In other words, charitable nonprofit organizations may initially have greater trust because of a perceived halo but when the halo slips, these same organizations are held to a higher standard than their for-profit counterparts.
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 GISELLE A AUGER.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Kelly, Kathleen S.
Local: Co-adviser: Sutherland, John C.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2013-04-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042826:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0042826/00001

Material Information

Title: An Experimental Analysis of the Effect of Transparency on Charitable Nonprofit and For-Profit Business Organizations
Physical Description: 1 online resource (230 p.)
Language: english
Creator: AUGER,GISELLE A
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: BEHAVIORAL -- BUSINESSES -- INTENTIONS -- NONPROFITS -- PUBLIC -- RELATIONS -- TRANSPARENCY -- TRUST
Journalism and Communications -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Mass Communication thesis, Ph.D.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy AN EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF TRANSPARENCY ON CHARITABLE NONPROFIT AND FOR-PROFIT BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS By Giselle Andr?e Auger May 2011 Chair: Kathleen S. Kelly Co-chair: John C. Sutherland Major: Mass Communication Within the last two decades, demands for increased organizational transparency have multiplied in the government, business and nonprofit sectors, in telecommunication, financial and banking industries, and more recently, in the deep-water oil drilling. During that same time period, the number of nonprofit organizations has steadily grown, as have questions relating to their accountability and transparency to the point where the U. S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the U. S. Senate have placed increased scrutiny on the sector. Given the increased demands for and interest in the construct of transparency and the continued growth and importance of the nonprofit sector, the purpose of this experimental study was as follows: (1) to examine the effect of organizational and communicative transparency on trust and positive behavioral intentions of publics, (2) to provide comparative analysis of the effect of transparency on trust and behavioral intentions in charitable nonprofit organizations and for-profit businesses, and (3) to determine the significance of interaction among organizational transparency, communicative transparency and type of organization. Results of this study found that transparent organizations that communicate transparently have greater levels of trust and positive behavioral intentions overall. Moreover, each of the transparency constructs, organizational and communicative, have independent effects on trust and positive behavioral intentions. However, the result of comparative study between charitable nonprofit organizations and their for-profit counterparts were mixed, with the nonprofit organizations achieving higher levels of trust and behavioral intentions in most of the experimental situations and the for-profit businesses achieving higher levels of trust in the doubly non-transparent and doubly-transparent groups. In other words, charitable nonprofit organizations may initially have greater trust because of a perceived halo but when the halo slips, these same organizations are held to a higher standard than their for-profit counterparts.
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 GISELLE A AUGER.
Thesis: Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Kelly, Kathleen S.
Local: Co-adviser: Sutherland, John C.
Electronic Access: RESTRICTED TO UF STUDENTS, STAFF, FACULTY, AND ON-CAMPUS USE UNTIL 2013-04-30

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0042826:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 AN EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF TRANSPARENCY ON CHARITABLE NONPROFIT AND FOR PROFIT BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS By GISELLE ANDREE AUGER A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 Giselle Andre Auger

PAGE 3

3 In memory of my loyal and faithful companions who followed me on this journey to Florida and ended their jour neys here: Chelsea, Boomer, and Peanut

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Ph.D. process requires dedication and strength of will but most importantly it requires the support, guidance and love of many people. I would like first to acknowledge the comfort and support offered by my family. My husband, Andrew, could not help me understand statistics but his never ending belief in my ability, his companionship, and his support with the household made the process easier. And his willingness to move the entire fam ily to Florida from Maine made it possible. Children must follow their parents, yet I want to acknowledge the willingness of my children, Benjamin, John and Annabelle, to leave their world behind and venture to Florida, knowing that they would be required to move again once the degree was completed. The boys have grown from elementary school age children to big, 12 and 13 year olds in our time here and I am grateful for their willingness to embrace yet another journey, this time to Pittsburgh where they wi ll, I hope, grow to adulthood as fine young men. Annabelle is too young to understand the concept of moving but her endless joy and happy nature have brought sunshine into my life every day. I thank also my wonderful mother, Denise, my sisters, Monique an d Nicole, and my brother, Joseph. Though 1500 miles away they supported me through every step listening to my trials and tribulations, my exasperation and enthusiasm, and then offering comfort when exhaustion hit. I am particularly grateful to my mothe r, whose life filled with ambition, hard work and generosity has provided the inspiration for my own and whose unwavering belief in my ability to do whatever I set out to do, prompted me to follow my dreams. Her support of my decision to move so far away made the my

PAGE 5

5 Josephine and John Bloss who believed and encouraged me every step of the way. Some people have good supervisory committees and som e people have great supervisory committees but I have had the good fortune to be blessed with the very best committee possible. Each member of my committee provided knowledge, guidance, support and reassurance in different amounts and at different times s o that together, they made the best team possible. For that I am grateful and I thank Dr. Kathleen Kelly, chair, and Dr. John Sutherland, co chair, and Dr. Linda Hon and Dr. Hannah Carter, committee members, for their interest and support of the degree pr ocess and dissertation project. Before I even entered the program, Dr. Kelly was enthusiastically supportive of my decision to pursue the Ph.D. Once here at UF, she helped me develop a strong degree plan that provided the basis for my dissertation and t he theoretical foundation necessary relations and fundraising specialization, her extensive knowledge and understanding of the nonprofit sector and her professional busine ss background provided me with a role model of the highest order to follow and I am grateful for the opportunity to have studied and worked with her. Her protection of me as a student and her help in negotiating the life of academia were greatly appreciat ed and the guidance through the job search and negotiation process were invaluable. I count myself fortunate to have had the personal and scholarly support of Dr. Kelly whose editing skills are unparalleled and helped bring my dissertation to a higher lev el. I must acknowledge also that her comments and

PAGE 6

6 editing of my first academic paper improved it to the extent that I achieved my very first publication in a refereed journal and for that I am most grateful. I cannot express enough gratitude for the patie nce of Dr. Sutherland who helped me develop the dissertation topic over months and then guided me through the When I went off track, Dr. Sutherland guided me back to the path. When I felt lost and unfocused in the morass of information I had gathered, he knew how to guide my thought process to clarity. He pushed me and pushed me until I pushed back, making me take ownership of my scholarship and I am very grateful for h is style of guidance, availability and good humor and his belief in me made the dissertation process more enjoyable than it would have been otherwise. I am deeply happy and appreciative to have had the opportunity to pursue this process with him. I am grateful to have had the opportunity to study public relations theory with Dr. Linda Hon. Her dedication to developing theory in public relations and her encouragement of studen ts to pursue theoretical development in the field have helped me focus my research agenda and thus strengthened me as a scholar. I will take with developed over time, rather than the grasshopper method of scholarship where we jump from one interesting idea to the next. I am also grateful to have met and worked with Dr. Hannah Carter. While we nce of leadership to organizational culture, including the ethics of organizations. Because of

PAGE 7

7 her encouragement and expertise in the leadership arena, I look forward to developing research studies linking leadership and transparency. Dr. Juan Carlos Moll eda was not a member of my committee but I am grateful for the opportunity to have served on the Frank and Betsy Karel Endowed Chair in Public Interest Communications under Dr. Molleda. The opportunity to serve on this committee gave me insight and unders tanding into the academic search process and this insight has been very valuable in the job search process. It was also a pleasure to be able to spend time in such a collegial atmosphere as that provided by the committee meetings. I thank you for making me welcome. I would also like to acknowledge the contributions to my degree provided by Dr. Spiro Kiousis, department chair, and Dr. Belio Martinez. Though not members of my committee, both Dr. Kiousis and Dr. Martinez helped me develop as a teacher. Than k you, Dr. Kiousis, for listening to my requests for particular assignments and giving me the opportunity to develop as an instructor. And thank you, Dr. Martinez, for your instruction in teaching the visual communication course, which has provided the co rnerstone of my teaching in public relations. Finally, I am enormously grateful for my friends. When I came to UF I expected to leave with a Ph.D. and a job. I did not know that I would also leave having made some of the best friends of my life. I am so grateful for my friends who provided companionship, humor, expertise and support throughout this adventure: Angie Lindsey, Moonhee Cho, Maria de Moya, Jennifer Cox, Vanessa Bravo, Rajul Jain, and Joy Rodgers. Together we made the process bearable. Toget her we figured it out. Thank you. I will miss you.

PAGE 8

8 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST O F TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 12 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 15 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 17 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 19 Importance of Transparency ................................ ................................ ................... 19 Import ance of Trust ................................ ................................ ................................ 21 Transparency and Trust in Crisis Situations ................................ ........................... 23 Transparency in Different Types of Organizations ................................ .................. 25 Transparency, Trust and Positive Behavioral Intentions ................................ ......... 28 Focus of Dissertation Study ................................ ................................ .................... 30 Significance of the Study ................................ ................................ ........................ 31 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 33 Defining Public Relations ................................ ................................ ........................ 33 Two way Symmetrical Model of Public Relations ................................ ................... 34 Measurement of Organization Public Relationships ................................ .............. 36 Trust ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 40 Determinants of Trust ................................ ................................ ............................. 42 Integrity ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 42 Competence ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 43 Goodwill or Benevolence ................................ ................................ .................. 43 Behavioral Intentions ................................ ................................ .............................. 44 Positive and Negative Behavioral Intentions ................................ ........................... 44 Trust and Behavioral Intentions ................................ ................................ .............. 45 Transparency ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 46 Determinants of Transparency ................................ ................................ ................ 49 Participation ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 49 Substantial Information ................................ ................................ ..................... 50 Accountability ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 50 Secrecy ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 51 Integrity ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 51 Respect ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 52 Openness ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 52 Transparency and Trust ................................ ................................ .......................... 52 Transparency, Trust and Positive Behavioral Intentions ................................ ......... 54

PAGE 9

9 Charitable Nonprofit Organizations ................................ ................................ ......... 55 Characteristics of Charitable Nonprofit Organizations ................................ ...... 56 Public Trust ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 57 Trust and Accountability ................................ ................................ ................... 60 Transparency in Charitable Nonprofit Organizations ................................ .............. 61 Crisis Situations ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 62 Crisis Respons e and Communication ................................ ................................ ..... 65 Development of Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ................... 67 Summary of Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ......................... 70 3 METHOD ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 74 Pilot Studies ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 75 Main Study ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 77 Participants ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 77 Stimuli ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 77 Organizational transpare ncy ................................ ................................ ...... 77 Types of organization ................................ ................................ ................. 78 Communicative transparency ................................ ................................ ..... 79 Measures ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 80 Organizational transparency ................................ ................................ ...... 80 Communicative transparency ................................ ................................ ..... 80 Trust ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 81 Behavioral intentions ................................ ................................ .................. 81 Procedure ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 82 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 87 Sample ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 87 Descriptive Statistics ................................ ................................ ............................... 89 Scale Reliability Analysis ................................ ................................ .................. 89 Scale Items and Determinants ................................ ................................ ......... 90 Organizational transparency ................................ ................................ ...... 91 Comm unicative transparency ................................ ................................ ..... 93 Trust ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 95 Behavioral intentions ................................ ................................ .................. 97 Significance of Scale Item Effects on Trust ................................ ...................... 98 Significance of Scale Item Effects on Behavioral Intentions ............................. 98 Exploratory Factor Analysis ................................ ................................ .............. 99 Chec k on Manipulation of Stimulli ................................ ................................ ......... 101 Hypotheses Testing ................................ ................................ .............................. 103 Test of Hypothesis 1 ................................ ................................ ....................... 104 Trust ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 105 Behavioral intentions ................................ ................................ ................ 106 Test of Hy pothesis 2 ................................ ................................ ....................... 107 Trust ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 107 Behavioral intentions ................................ ................................ ................ 109

PAGE 10

10 Test of Hypothesis 3 ................................ ................................ ....................... 110 Trust ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 110 Behavioral intentions ................................ ................................ ................ 113 Models of Transparency Measurement ................................ ................................ 115 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 162 Summary of Results ................................ ................................ .............................. 163 Organization al and Communicative Transparency ................................ ......... 164 Organizational transparency ................................ ................................ .... 164 Communicative transparency ................................ ................................ ... 165 Trust ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 167 Behavioral Intentions ................................ ................................ ...................... 168 Hypotheses ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 169 Implications for The ory and Practice ................................ ................................ ..... 170 Overall Importance of Transparency ................................ .............................. 170 Comparative Significance of Transparency in Different Types of Organizations ................................ ................................ .............................. 173 ................................ ...................... 174 Implications for Practice ................................ ................................ ................. 175 Implications for Crisis Communication Strategy ................................ ............. 177 Implications for Public Relations Theory ................................ ......................... 179 Limitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 181 Suggestions for Future Research ................................ ................................ ......... 183 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 185 APPENDIX A EXPERIME NTAL MANIPULATIONS ................................ ................................ .... 189 Article 1: Organizational Transparency in a Nonprofit Organization ..................... 189 Article 2: Organizational Transparency in a For Profit Business ........................... 192 Article 3: Communicative Transparency in a Nonprofit Organization .................... 194 Article 4: Communicative Transparency in a For Profit Business ......................... 197 Article 5: Non Transparent Non profit Organization ................................ ............... 199 Article 6: Non Transparent For Profit Business ................................ .................... 201 Article 7: Non Transparent Communication in a Nonprofit Organization ............... 203 Article 8: Non Transparent Communication in a For Profit Business .................... 205 B PERMISSION FOR USE OF PHOTOS ................................ ................................ 207 File: Culvert under the A58 Halifax Rd, Rishworth Moor geogr aph.org.uk 93539.jpg ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 207 File: Downey City Hall.jpg ................................ ................................ ..................... 208 File: Fine Bubble Retrievable Grid.jpg ................................ ................................ .. 209 File: Klaerwerk emschermuendung.jpg ................................ ................................ 210 File: Runoff torbidity.jpg ................................ ................................ ........................ 211

PAGE 11

11 File: Runoff of soil & fertilizer.jpg ................................ ................................ .......... 212 C INFORMED CONSENT PROTOCOL ................................ ................................ ... 213 D SURVEY ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 215 REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 220 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 230

PAGE 12

12 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3 1 Organizational transparency measurement items ................................ .............. 84 3 2 Communicative transparency measurement items ................................ ............. 85 3 3 Trust measurement items ................................ ................................ ................... 86 3 4 Behavioral intentions measurement items ................................ .......................... 86 4 1 Frequency of gender by experimental block ................................ ..................... 116 4 2 Results of 1 way ANOVA for gender ................................ ................................ 116 4 3 Mean age and range by experimental block ................................ ..................... 117 4 4 Results of 1 way ANOVA for age ................................ ................................ ..... 117 4 5 Experimental block frequencies ................................ ................................ ........ 118 4 6 Type of organization frequencies ................................ ................................ ...... 118 4 7 Organizational transparency frequencies ................................ ......................... 118 4 8 Communicative transparency frequencies ................................ ........................ 118 4 9 Organizational transparency scale reliability by experimental block ................. 119 4 10 Communicative transparency scale reliab ility by experimental block ............... 119 4 11 Trust scale reliability by experimental block ................................ ...................... 120 4 12 Behavioral intentions scale reliability by experimental block ............................ 120 4 13 Organizational transparency determinants and scale item means by experimental block. ................................ ................................ ........................... 121 4 14 Communicative transparency item means in experimental blocks 1 4 ............ 123 4 15 Communicative transparency item means in experimental blocks 5 8 ............ 125 4 16 Trust scale item means by experimental blocks 1 4. ................................ ....... 127 4 17 Trust scale item means by experimental blocks 5 8. ................................ ....... 129 4 18 Behavioral intentions scale item means by experimental block. ....................... 131

PAGE 13

13 4 19 Organizational transparency main effects on trust ................................ ............ 132 4 20 Communicative transparency main effects on trust ................................ .......... 132 4 21 Organizational transparency main effects on behavioral intentions .................. 133 4 22 Communicative transparency main effects on behavioral intentions ................ 133 4 23 Exploratory factor analysis of transparency scales ................................ ........... 134 4 24 Exploratory factor analysis of transparency scales: Eigenvalues and variance 136 4 25 Exploratory facto r analysis of trust and behavioral intentions scales ................ 138 4 26 Exploratory factor analysis of trust and behavioral intentions scales : Eigenvalues and variance ................................ ................................ ................ 139 4 27 Exploratory factor analysis of trust scale ................................ .......................... 140 4 28 Exploratory factor analysis of trust scale: Eigenvalues and variance ............... 141 4 29 Exploratory factor analysis of behavioral intentions scale ................................ 142 4 30 Exploratory facto r analysis of behavioral intentions scale: Eigenvalues and variance ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 142 4 31 Manipulation of stimuli check by organization type ................................ ........... 143 4 32 ................. 144 4 33 organizations ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 144 4 34 organizations ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 145 4 35 charitable nonprofit organizations ................................ ................................ ..... 145 4 36 profit businesses ................................ ..... 146 4 37 for profit businesses .............. 146 4 38 profit businesses ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 147 4 39 towards for profit businesses ................................ ................................ ............ 147

PAGE 14

14 4 40 Descriptive results of interaction among organizational transparency, communicative transparency and type of organization on trust ........................ 148 4 41 Significance of interaction among organizational transparency, communicative transparency and type of organization on trust ........................ 149 4 42 Descriptive results of interaction among organizational transparency, communicative transparency and type of organization on behavioral intentions. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 154 4 43 Significance of interaction among organizational transparency, communicative transparency and type of organization on beh avioral intentions ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 155

PAGE 15

15 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Model of trust (Li & Betts, 2005, p. 5). ................................ ................................ 72 2 2 Schema of relationship among transparency, trust, and behavioral intentions ... 72 2 3 Transparent communication effect on stakeholder trust in crisis situation .......... 73 2 4 Non transparent communication effect on stakeholder trust in crisis situation ... 73 4 1 Graphical representation of the effect of organizational transparency and type of organization on trust. ................................ ................................ ............ 150 4 2 Bar chart repr esentation of the effect of organizational transparency and type of organization on trust. ................................ ................................ .................... 151 4 3 Graphical representation of the effect of communicative transparency and type of organization on trust. ................................ ................................ ............ 152 4 4 Bar chart representation of the effect of communicat ive transparency and type of organization on trust. ................................ ................................ ............ 153 4 5 Graphical representation of the effect of organizational transparency an d type of organization on behavioral intentions. ................................ ................... 156 4 6 Bar chart representation of the effect of organizational transparency and type of organization on behavioral intentions. ................................ .......................... 157 4 7 Graphical representation of the effect of communicative transparency and typ e of organization on behavioral intentions ................................ .................... 158 4 8 Bar chart representation of the effect of communicative transparency and type of organization on behavioral intentions ................................ .................... 159 4 9 inten tions based on communicative transparency ................................ ............ 160 4 10 Model of non behavioral i ntentions based on communicative transparency .......................... 161 5 1 posi tive behavioral intentions in crisis situations ................................ ............... 187 5 2 tr ust and positive behavioral intentions in non crisis situations ......................... 188 A 1 Image of fictitious newspaper layout presented for article 1 ............................. 191

PAGE 16

16 A 2 Image of fictitious newspaper layout presented for article 2 ............................. 193 A 3 Image of fictitious newspaper layout presented for article 3 ............................. 196 A 4 Image of fictitious newspaper layout presented for article 4 ............................. 198 A 5 Image of fictitious newspaper layout presented for a rticle 5 ............................. 200 A 6 Image of fictitious newspaper layout presented for article 6 ............................. 202 A 7 Image of fictitious newspaper layout presented for article 7 ............................. 204 A 8 Image of fictitious newspaper layout presented for article 8 ............................. 206

PAGE 17

17 Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate S chool of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy AN EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF TRANSPARENCY ON CHARITABLE NONPROFIT AND FOR PROFIT BUSINESS ORGANIZATIONS By Giselle Andre Auger May 2011 Chair: Kathleen S. Kelly Cochair: John C. Sutherland Major: Mass Communication Within the last two decades, demands for increased organizational transparency have multiplied in the government, business and nonprofit sectors in telecommunication, financial and banking industries, and more recently, in the deep water oil drilling. During that same time period, the number of nonprofit organizations has steadily grown, as have questions relating to their accountability and tr ansparency to the point where the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) and the U.S. Senate have placed increased scrutiny on the sector. Given the increased demands for and interest in the construct of transparency and the continued growth and im portance of the nonprofit sector, the purpose of this experimental study was as follows: (1) to examine the effect of organizational and communicative transparency on trust and positive behavioral intentions of publics, (2) to provide comparative analysis of the effect of transparency on trust and behavioral intentions in charitable nonprofit organizations and for profit businesses, and (3) to determine the significance of interaction among organizational transparency, communicative transparency and type of organization.

PAGE 18

18 Results of this study found that transparent organizations that communicate transparently have greater levels of trust and positive behavioral intentions overall. Moreover, each of the transparency constructs, organizational and communicat ive, have independent effects on trust and positive behavioral intentions. However, the result of comparative study between charitable nonprofit organizations and their for profit counterparts were mixed, with the nonprofit organizations achieving higher levels of trust and behavioral intentions in most of the experimental situations and the for profit businesses achieving higher levels of trust in the doubly non transparent and doubly transparent groups. In other words, charitable nonprofit organizations may initially have greater trust because of a perceived halo but when the halo slips, these same organizations are held to a higher standard than their for profit counterparts.

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The purpose of this dissertation study was three fold. Given the increased demands for and interest in the construct of transparency and the continued growth and importance of the nonprofit sector, the purpose of this experimental study was (1) to examine the effect of organizational and communicative transparency on trust and behavioral intentions of publics, (2) to provide comparative analysis of the effect of transparency on trust and behavioral intentions in charitable nonprofit organizations and for p rofit businesses, and (3) to determine the significance of interaction among organizational transparency, communicative transparency and type of organization. Importance of Transparency Within the last two decades, demands for increased organizational transparency have multiplied in the government (Ashwell, 2010; Snider & Park, 2010), business (Bandsuch, Pate & Thies, 2008,) and nonprofit sectors (Brody, 2002), in the telecommunication (Axtman & Scherer, 2002), financial and banking industries (Crittend en, 2006; SEC, 2006), and more recently, in deep water oil drilling (Rogoff, 2010). Seen as a solution to lapses of organizational ethics and misdeeds, transparency can help to restore trust, curtail employee dissatisfaction, and diminish reputational r isk or damage (Bandsuch et al., 2008; Rawlins, 2009). Further, transparency may improve shareholder certainty and provide competitive advantage (Economist 2004; Welch & Welch, 2007). Advocates of organizational transparency to claims of authenticity, legitimacy, and credibility as well

PAGE 20

20 The 2010 Edelman Trust Barometer highlights the increased importance of transparency, which has been defined by Rawlins (2009) as: The deliberate attempt to make available all legally releasable information whether positive or negative in nature in a manner that is accurate, timely, balanced, and unequivocal, for the purpose of enhancing the reasoning ability of publics and ho lding organizations accountable for their actions, policies, and practices. (p. 75) The 2010 report from Edelman marked the tenth year in which the company engaged in a global survey of trust and the first year in which the survey was tailored specifically to the financial services industry (Edelman, 2010b). The 2010 survey was also the first to include transparency as a measurement item and, among 10 measurement items, transparency was ranked first and trust second, as attributes of importance for corpora te reputation, whereas financial performance slipped from its third place ranking in 2006 to last place in 2010 (Edelman, 2010a, p. 6). The 2010 report also highlighted the increased importance of organizational communication (Edelman, 2010a). Whereas c onfidence in traditional media such as as press releases, reports, and e mails, as sources of information about a company, jump[ed] five points globally, to 32 percent, whe reas the credibility of corporate or In addition to reporting the rise in importance of transparency and trust to corporate reputation, the 2010 Edelman Trust Barometer (Edelman, 2010a) identified a shift in the importance of stakeholders. When asked which stakeholder group should be eport led by trust and transparency now influences

PAGE 21

21 corporate reputation and demands that companies take a multi dimensional approach to Scholars of transparency would not be surprised to find that the 2010 Edelman Trust Barometer (Edelman, 2010a) highlighted transparency as well as the increasing importance of organizational communication, which is closely tied to organizational transparency. Research into the construct o f transparency has shown that it is a multi dimensional construct that incorporates reputation and communication in two separate conceptualizations (Auger, 2010; Rawlins, 2009). One approach conceptualizes transparency as a communicative process, for exam ple, a process that is accurate, timely, balanced and unequivocal. The other approach conceptualizes transparency as an organizational trait, which results from being accurate, timely, balanced and unequivocal. Scholars argue that the benefits of transpar ency range from building trust transparency include encouraging organizational accountab ility, commitment, collaboration, and cooperation, and increasing competence (Jahansoozi, 2007; Tampere, 2008). Importance of Trust It was not surprising to find the importance of transparency and organizational communication linked in a survey of trust t hat also highlighted the increasing importance of all stakeholders (Edelman, 2010a). Research has shown trust is related to transparency (Rawlins, 2008) and is an essential commodity for successfully building or re building relationships (Bandsuch et al., 2008; Garbarino & Johnson, 1999). Within organization

PAGE 22

22 1999, p. 19). To earn trust, scho lars suggest that an organization must be perceived as being competent and reliable and having integrity (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999). Benefits of being trusted include donor support (Handy, 2000; Sargeant & Lee, 2004), higher com pany earnings (Ben Ner & Putterman, 2009) and stronger relational commitment (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Sargeant & Lee, 2004). Studies have also linked trust to the behavioral intentions of stakeholders (Ajzen, 1991; Bruning, 2002; Fazio, Powell & Willia ms, 1989; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ki & Hon, 2007). Jonker and to the dependability/capabilities of some other agent (maybe itself) or with respect to the turn of e that is, a positive attitude leads to positive behavioral intentions. As an attitude, positive trust should be related to positive behavioral intentions, including the intent to purchase, donate recommend the organization or product, or simply the intent to remain a customer or client rather than seek an alternative provider. Conversely, without trust, consumers do not purchase, donors do not give, shareholders do not invest, employees are less effective, and governments are skeptical of both for profit and nonprofit organizations (Bandsuch, Pate, & Theis, 2008; J. E. Grunig & Huang, 2000). As a construct, trust is linked to the quality of relationships between organizations and their publics, o which exists between an organization and its key publics in which the actions of either entity impact the economic, social, political and/or cultural well

PAGE 23

23 (Led ingham & Bruning, 1998, p. 62). Within this conceptualization, the central role of public relations is to develop mutually beneficial relationships with stakeholders (Broom, 2010; Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998, 2000). As a result, pub lic relations contributes to organizational effectiveness and positively affects the We cannot say that excellent public relations alone can save an organization the costs of activism, regulation, or litigation, that it makes employees more productive, or that it brings resources from satisfied customers, donors, stockholders, or legislators. But good relationships do contribute to these bottom line behaviors. (L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig & Ehling, 1992, p. 86) Transparency an d Trust in Crisis Situations When organizations have strong relationships with their stakeholders they build customers, donors, or other supporters in times of organization al crisis. Alsop strength. Their reputation precedes them, and the public is inclined to believe they will ations that organizations are most likely to experience loss of trust or loss of reputation and increased demands for organizational transparency as stakeholders of all kinds demand information on cause and accountability. Even if the crisis was not with in the control of the organization, it may still come under the scrutiny of the media, the general public, and the government, (Coombs, 2004; Knickerbocker, 2010). As Coombs (2 about how organizations should act. Planes should land safely, products should not

PAGE 24

24 harm us, management should not steal money, and organizations should reflect societal Therefore, organizational reputations and relations between the organization and its stakeholders may be damaged by crisis, leading to loss of customers, shareholders, donors, or volunteers, and may potentially lead to reduced organizational viability, or the inability to operate. Moreover, the violation of expectation caused by crises can undermine trust in the of Toyota Motor Company, acknowledged in the wake of the acc elerator pedal me to Despite the potential for great loss of trust in relationships between organizations and their publics in a crisis situation, t here is also the potential to minimize the damage from such crises. Research indicates that the extent of negative impact of crises on organizations may be reduced by both the type of crisis and the communication strategy used in responding to the crisis (Coombs, 2007b). Depending on the response strategy and other factors, organizations are less likely to be held accountable for crisis situations where they were a victim, or for accidental crisis situations, than for crises that may have been prevented b y some action by the organization (Coombs, 2007b).

PAGE 25

25 Similarly, Rawlins (2008) investigated the relationships between trust and transparency and found that transparency in communication efforts was also a determinant of trust: In particular, organizations that encourage and allow public participation, share substantial information so their publics can make informed decisions, give balanced reports that hold them accountable, and open themselves up to public scrutiny, are more likely to be trusted. (p. 425) Moreover, communicative transparency could be among the factors that help to minimize the effect of crisis on an organization. Huang (2008) argued that the form of response taken to present crisis messages to stakeholders can also influence their percep tion of the situation and may be more important that the response strategy selected. The forms of response Huang (2008) suggested, timely, consistent, and active are similar to the determinants of communicative transparency, which include seeking feedback ; providing detailed, complete, relevant information; being forthcoming with information; and freely admitting mistakes. Transparency in Different Types of Organizations Recently, Handy, Seto, Wakaruk, Mersey, Mejia and Copeland (2010) found that nonprofi consumers were also more likely to select nonprofit educational and healthcare institutions. F urther, of the 23 countries surveyed in the 2011 Edelman Trust Barometer (Edelman, 2011), nongovernmental, or nonprofit, organizations are as trusted or more trusted than businesses in 16 countries. The report noted that these organizations, which are his torically trusted in developed markets continue to gain in trust in emerging markets. As noted in The Economist

PAGE 26

26 more trust than charities a trust given both by rich people who give them money and by the w its related attribute of trust, it may be that the need for transparency is less for a charitable nonprofit than for a business entity. in nonprofit and for profit orga nizations, yet it is not surprising to find higher levels of trust in nonprofits. Charitable nonprofit organizations are created to fulfill needs of society for which government is unwilling or unable to provide service, or where founders of the charitabl e nonprofit see a need to be filled in society that is not being met adequately elsewhere, and where it is not possible for the public to judge the quality of the services provided (Brody, 2002; Jeavons, 2001; Salamon, 2003). Charitable nonprofit organiza tions fulfill separate roles in society not only from their for profit business counterparts but they also retain special status among nonprofit organizations (Jeavons, 2001; Kearns, 1996; Kelly, 1998; Salamon, 2003). As Kelly (2008) explained: Nonprofit s share only a few common characteristics: (1) they are private, which distinguishes them from government, (2) they do not distribute profits to those who control the organization, which distinguishes them from business, and (3) they are voluntary and self governing (pp. 1914 1915). The term charitable nonprofit is used here to distinguish philanthropic, or charitable, nonprofits, identified under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code as 501(c)(3) organizations, from the many other types of nonprofit organizatio ns, which include those within the 501(c)(4) category, such as civic leagues and social welfare organizations,

PAGE 27

27 and those within the 501(c)(6) category, such as chambers of commerce (Kelly, 1998). The most distinguishing characteristic of the 501(c)(3) ca tegory is that whereas organizations within all 27 categories of the 501(c) section are exempt from federal income taxes, contributions to those organizations in the 501(c)(3) category are tax whereas contributions to organizations in the other 501(c) categories are not. Among the characteristics that distinguish charitable nonprofit organizations from their for profit counterparts is the restriction from distributing profits to those who cont rol the organization (Brody, 2002; Kelly, 1998) and the difference in the exchange relationship between these organizations and the stakeholders who provide the funds that support them. Those who provide the capital for provision of services by the charit able nonprofit may not be the consumers of those services (Jeavons, 2001; Kearns, 2001), whereas purchasers of consumer goods or services are generally expected to personally use or gift those goods or services. As a result, the existence of charitable no nprofit organizations is based on public trust wherein the general public expects charitable organizations to use funds wisely and ethically to fulfill the societal needs identified in their mission (Brody, 2002; Jeavons, 2001). In comparison, public for profit businesses are expected to provide revenue to shareholders, by providing goods and services to consumers in exchange for money. Their mission may also incorporate good business ethics in providing quality goods and services at fair prices, but the overall goal of for profit business is to make a profit for those who own the business (Friedman, 1970).

PAGE 28

28 Thus, despite the importance in distinction between for profit businesses and charitable nonprofit organizations, each of these types of organization may demonstrate organizational transparency in terms of integrity, openness and respect for their stakeholders and may also communicate transparently with these stakeholders, providing clear and comprehensive information and welcoming feedback. As a resul t, the effect of transparency on organizational outcomes may not be noticeably different between charitable nonprofit organizations and for profit businesses. In both cases, organizational transparency and communicative transparency contribute to the buil ding of trust and realization of positive behavioral outcomes from stakeholders (Rawlins, 2008, 2009). Given a crisis situation, however, the effect of transparency or lack of transparency on charitable nonprofit organizations may be different than the e ffect on a for profit business. Charitable nonprofit organizations are not immune from crises any more so than businesses (Brody, 2001; Kearns, 1996; Salamon, 2002; Stephenson & Chaves, 2006) and because of their reliance on public trust, the effect of su ch crises may be greater than on their business counterparts. Conversely, it may be that because the nonprofit sector is founded on public trust and are seen as inherently trustworthy that the effect is less for the charitable nonprofit organizations than the effect seen by a for profit business in the same situation. Transparency, Trust and Positive Behavioral Intentions Transparency is built through honest and ethical behavior and communication with stakeholders. Rawlins (2009) explained: Transparency enhances the ethical nature of organizations in two ways: first, it holds organizations accountable for their actions and policies; and second, it respects the autonomy and reasoning ability of individuals who

PAGE 29

29 deserve to have access to informa tion that might affect their position in life. (p. 77) As such, honest and ethical behavior and communication with stakeholders involves organizational behavior and pol icies, providing and making important information accessible, and justifying the withholding of information or provision of partial information (Rawlins, 2009). Such transparent behavior then lends itself to trust. As organization is truthful and ethical and considers Studies have shown that positive attitudes such as trust lead to positive behavioral intentions, (Ajzen, 1991; Fazio, Powell & Williams, 1989; Fishbein & Ajzen, (Handy, 2000; Sargeant & Lee, 2004), higher company earnings (Ben Ner & Putterman, 2009), and stronger relational commitment (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Sargeant & Lee, 2004). In crisis situations, lack of transparency can lead to loss of trust (Bergin, 2010; Furman, 2010). Frequently paired in discussions and reports on crisis situations, lack of transparency is seen as a determinant of crisis situations where increased information may have prevented the crisis from happening or escalating, whereas loss of trust is engaging in communicative transparency may act to reinforce existing trust levels and mitigate loss of trust (Bandsuch, et al., 2008; Rawlins, 2008, 2009). As such, organizations that are communicatively transparent in a

PAGE 30

30 crisis situation should have hig her trust levels and greater positive behavioral intentions from stakeholders than organizations that are communicatively non transparent. Focus of Dissertation Study Today, transparency and trust lead in importance in the development of relationships be tween organizations and their stakeholders (Edelman Trust Barometer 2010), yet little research has been devoted to the study of their relationship to each other. Rawlins (2009) developed a scale to measure both organizational transparency and communicativ e transparency and Rawlins (2008) used the communicative transparency scale to measure the effect of communicative transparency on trust. However, there has been no similar study to examine the relationship between the organizational transparency traits i no studies have yet to be conducted to compare the effect of organizational transparency traits with communicative transparency efforts, which may have independent or dependent effects on trust. Trust is both an outcome of transparency and a determinant of behavioral intentions. It is an attitude held by stakeholders in organization public relationships (OPR) that helps determine the quality of the relationship and the behavioral intentions of those s takeholders. Studies have indicated the importance of trust to behavioral intentions (Ajzen, 1991; Fazio, Powell & Williams, 1989; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975) and the importance of positive behavioral intentions to organizational success and viability (Hong & Yang, 2009; Sargeant & Lee, 2004; Zeithaml et al., 1996). Charitable nonprofit organizations and business organizations fulfill different roles in society and, therefore, are reliant on public trust to different extents for their survival. Furthermore neither type of organization is exempt from experiencing crisis situations

PAGE 31

31 in which that trust can be damaged (Arenson, 1995; Axtman & Scherer, 2002; Romero & Atlas, 2002; SEC, 2006; Wilhelm, 2008). However, whereas there have been examinations and case studies of crises in nonprofit (Stephenson & Chaves, 2006) and for profit (Blaney, Benoit, & Brazeal, 2002) organizational contexts there has been no comparative study of nonprofit and for profit organizations in crisis situations. The focus of this disse rtation study was to examine the effect of organizational transparency and communicative transparency on trust and behavioral intentions of stakeholders. The effect of both types of transparency on trust and behavioral intentions was measured as they rela te to a preventable crisis situation in which the sympathetic crisis response strategy is used. Further, comparative analysis was made between the effect of transparency on trust in charitable nonprofit and for profit business organizations. Significanc e of the Study Transparency is a new construct in public relations. As such, there are few studies that examine or explore the construct in depth. Yet the Edelman Trust uld This dissertation study adds to the body of knowledge in public relations by expanding understanding of transparency and the comparative importance of both par ts of the transparency construct organizational transparency and communicative transparency. In addition, because participants for the study were recruited from the general public ed to external stakeholders. Moreover, this research advances understanding of transparency through development of a model that incorporates organizational and communicative

PAGE 32

32 transparency in a crisis situation and the implications of these on trust and pos itive behavioral intentions of stakeholders. With regard to development of theory in organization public relationships (OPR), this dissertation adds to the understanding of the importance of transparency in OPR by t and the behavioral intentions of stakeholders regarding two different types of organizations, the charitable nonprofit organization and the for profit business. Furthermore, the study advances the understanding of the role of transparency in crisis resp onse. Form of response has been shown to have a greater effect on trust and relational commitment than choice of strategy (Huang, 2008). Whereas different crisis types demand different crisis response strategies, it may be that transparent responses have greater effect than non transparent forms of response. Such information may provide useful to the development of knowledge in crisis communication management. With regard to practice, and given that transparency involves communication and that communic ation is a function of public relations, this study provides additional support for public relations as a management function. Finally, the study serves to improve understanding of the impact of organizational transparency on stakeholder trust and how su ch stakeholders intend to behave, given reinforcement or a breach of their trust.

PAGE 33

33 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW In this chapter, the central constructs of transparency and trust are discussed; however, the growing importance of both transparency and tr ust have evolved from the organization public relationship paradigm of public relations. As such, the development of organization public relationships as a determinant of effective public relations is outlined as the framework in which transparency and tr ust are considered. Furthermore, the study evaluates the effect of transparency and trust in two types of organizations the charitable nonprofit and the for profit business. Therefore, definition and discussion of the differentiating characteristics of t hese types of organizations follow. Finally, this chapter also discusses types of crises, crisis communication strategies and forms of crisis response. The chapter concludes with a list of the research questions and hypotheses that guided the study. Defi ning Public Relations lly beneficial relationships between an organization and the publics on whom its success or number of public relations practitioners and scholars have come to believe that the fundamental goal of public relations is to build and then enhance on going or long term Stemming from their work on the International Association of Business Communicators (IABC) Excell ence Project, the purpose of which was to determine the

PAGE 34

34 characteristics of an excellent communication department, the contributions of public relations to an effective organization and the value of the contributions in economic terms, L. A. Grunig, J. E. G runig, and Ehling (1992) stated: Building relationships managing interdependence is the substance of public relations. Good relationships, in turn, make organizations more effective because they allow organizations more freedom more autonomy to achieve th eir missions than they would with bad relationships. By giving up autonomy by building relationships, ironically, organizations maximize that autonomy. (p. 69) view of the field as a goal oriented problem d, nurture, and maintain organization public relationships rather than manipulate public that: discipl publics, concern itself with the dimensions upon which that relationship is built, and determine the impact that the organization public relationship has on the organization and its key publi cs. (p. 56) Two way Symmetrical Model of Public Relations Two way symmetrical public relations was suggested by J. E. Grunig and Hunt (1984) as the most ethical of the four models of public relations: which are: press agentry, public information, two way asymmetrical, and two way symmetrical. Karlberg way symmetrical model is the most ethical approach to public relations and that ethical public relations also is the model most effect

PAGE 35

35 way communication also allows an organization to more effectively manage conflict, improve understanding, and address 142). And Ledingha m and Bruning (2000) demonstrated the importance of the two way symmetrical model in gaining competitive way symmetrical approach, constructed around the organization public relatio nship, may gain a competitive advantage that can serve as an additional organizational incentive to Research by Rawlins (2008, 2009) and Auger (2010) has demonstrated the link between transparency and two way symmetrical opinions of people like me before making decis way transparency. The practice of excellent public relations has also been ass ociated with achieving bottom line behaviors from stakeholders as evidenced by the J. E. Grunig, L. A. Grunig, and Ehling (1992, p. 86) quote presented in chapter one. The Excellence Study scholars concluded that good relationships contribute to such bott om line behaviors as making employees more productive and generating resources from satisfied customers and donors.

PAGE 36

36 good relationships do not lead to changes in behavior immediately relationships as they develop and are maintained rather than waiting to observe the behaviors that may or may not occur as a result of communication pr 11). Ledingham (2001) furthered the argument by stressing the need to measure not only relationships but the quality of those relationships and their outcomes. He argued, ip quality as well as for a general theory of public relations, grounded in the relational perspective, that explains how public relations functions and that provide a basis for predicting the Given that transparency is related to trust in organizations, at least among internal stakeholders such as employees (Rawlins, 2008), the construct of transparency has the potential to add to the understanding of organization public relationships, the measuremen t of their quality, and behavioral intentions of stakeholders based on their impressions of these relationships. Measurement of Organization Public Relationships Two major streams of research have responded to the scholarly demand for measurement in orga nization public relationships. According to Yang and J. E. Grunig processes of relationship formation or the outcomes of a relationship produced between an organization and

PAGE 37

37 which the actions of either entity impact the economic, social, political and/or cultural well being of the Ledingham and Bruning (1998) furthered investigated the many dimensions of relationships begun by Ledingham, Bruning, Thomlinson, and Lesko (1997) with development of a measurement scale for organization public relationships. The sc ale incorporated 17 items ranging from investment, commitment, trust, comfort, and cooperation to mutual goals, performance satisfaction, and shared technology. Results of their study found that the 17 dimensions reduced down to five: trust, openness, inv olvement, commitment, and investment in an organization public relationship. These five dimensions separated telephone customers who would stay with their provider, intended to leave the provider, or were undecided as to stay or leave in an emerging compe titive environment. Additional research on the scale by Bruning and Ledingham (1999) distinguished the multi dimensionality of organization public relationships by identifying three levels or dimensions of organization public relationships: the profession al, the personal, and the community relationship that organizations and their publics have professional, personal and community ng and Galloway (2003) extended the dimensions to include anthromorphism and comparison of alternatives dimensions, the first of which relates to the trust and confidence individuals place in organizations rather than in individuals. Additional research by Bruning and colleagues (Bruning, Castle, & Schrepfer, 2004; Bruning, DeMiglio, & Embry, 2006; Bruning & Galloway, 2003) has demonstrated

PAGE 38

38 the importance of organization public relationships to enhanced reputation and competitive advantage (Bruning, DeMig lio, & Embry, 2006), the importance of personal commitment to evaluation of organization public relationships, (Bruning, Castle, & Schrepfer, 2004), and the importance of mutual benefit to perceptions of satisfaction and behavioral intentions of stakeholde rs (Bruning, Castle, & Schrepfer, 2004; Bruning, DeMiglio, & Embry, 2006; and Bruning & Galloway, 2003). Whereas the stream of research undertaken by Ledingham and Bruning (1998) focuses on the significance of multi dimensionality of organization public re lationships (OPR) and the effect of perceptions of relationship quality within those dimensions on the behavioral intentions of stakeholders, the second stream of research has focused on determining the antecedents, or determinants, of organization public relationships. Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) proposed guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations that included a measurement scale of six key components of relationships: control mutuality, trust, satisfaction, commitment, exchange relationsh ip, and communal relationship. Four of these indicators trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutuality were adopted from work by Huang (1997) and relate to the quality of organization indicators exchange vs. communal relationships defines the kinds of relationships that public relations programs attempt to achieve, in comparison with the nature of 19 99, p. 20). They argued: the most strategic publics as part of strategic management processes and conducts communication programs to develop and maintain effective long term relation ships between management and those publics. As a result, we

PAGE 39

39 should be able to determine the value of public relations by measuring the quality of relationships with strategic publics. And, we should be able to extend our ability to evaluate communication programs by measuring the effects of those programs and correlating them with relationship indicators. (p. 9) Of the six indicators, Hon and J. E. Grunig found the four indicators of relationship quality trust, commitment, satisfaction, and control mutual ity successful organization 21). public relationship outcomes result in more posi p. 317), that active communication has greater effect than familiarity on relationship outcomes, (Yang & J. E. Grunig, 2005), that relational satisfaction has a stronger ef fect than company reputation on word of mouth intentions (Hong & Yang, 2009), and that perceptions of active communication from the organization result in more positive estimations of relational outcomes (Yang, 2007). Within the last few years, Rawlins (2008, 2009) has extended conceptualization of organization public relationships to include the construct of transparency. This new construct has been shown to be instrumental in the development of trust in organizations by stakeholders (Rawlins, 2008). Earlier sections have noted the importance of trust in both streams of organization public research. It is both a relationship dimension (Bruning & Galloway, 2003) and an indicator of relationship quality outcomes (Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999; Huang, 2001; K i & Hon, 2007). The appearance of trust in both streams of research indicates its importance as a determinant of quality organization public relationships and effective public relations.

PAGE 40

40 Trust Within organization public relationships, trust has been defin Grunig, 1999, p. 19). More importantly, researchers have indicated that trust provides the foundation for successful enterprise, even the very exist ence, of many types of organizations: donors must trust charitable organizations, shareholders must trust investment managers, employers must trust employees, and government must trust business and nonprofit organizations (Bandsuch, Pate, & Theis, 2008; J. E. Grunig & Huang, 2000). In other words, trust is viewed as an essential commodity for successfully building, maintaining, or re building relationships (Bandsuch et al., 2008; (Bandsuch et. al, 2008, p. 120). Yet trust is fragile, set in uncertainty, and influenced by stakeholder perceptions of competence, integrity and goodwill (Mattila, 2009; Rawlins, 2008). Bhattacharya, Devinney, and Pillutla (1998) define trust as outcomes that one can receive based on the expected action of another party in an ertainty and facilitating decision making in a Within organization (Huang, 2008, p 300). Trust has also been shown to have a direct effect on behavioral intentions (Mattila, 2009; Yee & Yeung, 2010) and commitment of stakeholders

PAGE 41

41 Organizations can these mi nimal thresholds of trust are probably insufficient for achieving anything more In addition to having an effect on the bottom line, studies indicate the benefits of being trusted in clude donor support (Handy, 2000; Sargeant & Lee, 2004), higher company earnings (Ben Ner & Putterman, 2009), and stronger relational commitment (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Sargeant & Lee, 2004). Further, Huang (2001) the possibility that [stakeholders] will continue Continuing a relationship with an organization indicates positive behavioral intentions, the observance of which have a lso been identified as benefits of trust (Bruning & Galloway, 2003; Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Yee & Yeung, 2010). Li and Betts (2005) proposed a model, which is described in Figure 2 1, that incorporates the concepts of risk and calculated probability, trustworthiness and expectation as determinants of trust. Within this model, trust is seen as a determinant of behavioral intentions and ultimately of action. Perceived risk relates to the ambiguity of the situation wherein stakeholders are unsure of wh ether to trust or not to trust an Further, the authors argued that whereas trust ne

PAGE 42

42 high, we expect a positive outcome. Otherwise, it is less likely that we will hold high Determinants of Trust Within the discussion of trust, above, have bee n indicators of the determinants of trust. Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) suggested integrity, dependability, and competence as determinants of trust, whereas Rawlins (2008) and Yee and Yeung (2010) added benevolence or goodwill as a determinant. Reliabilit y has also been suggested as necessary to trust and can be equated with dependability (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999). Yee and Yeung (2010) explored credibility as a determinant of trust but found that both 155). And, regarding organization donor relationships, Sargeant and Lee (2004) suggested a similar but different set of determinants: relationship investment, communication openness, influence acceptance, forbearanc e from opportunism, and control reduction. This dissertation will focus on integrity, competence, and goodwill or benevolence as the determinants most often associated with trust as a dimension of organization public relationships. Integrity appearance and reality, between intention and action, between promise and 112). Hon and J. E. Gru

PAGE 43

43 when a perso n perceives that the trustee adheres to a set of principles which is universally acceptable. Integrity, in terms of honesty and truthfulness, is one of the relationship betwee Competence Trust is based on expectation a nd expectations include those related to organizational ability to conduct business or provide a service as expected by stakeholders. When organizations have demonstrated their competence to provide a service or product, stakeholders will expect the organ ization to continue providing such services or products competently, reliably, and safely (Peyrot & Van Doren, 1994). Yee competence to perform a specific task under specific 146), whereas Rawlins (2008) considered factors such as organizational skill, ability, and reputation for achieving success, as determinants of competence. And Hon and Grunig organization has the ability to Goodwill or Benevolence trust because the trustee does not act in a purely self serving manner. This is the extent to which a trustee is believed to care for the exchange partner beyond any

PAGE 44

44 and considered from the point of the stakeholder, the extent to which an organization concerns itself with stakeholders in decision making, values the opinions of stakeholders in decision making, and the extent to which the organization is perceived as caring about the well being of stakeholders. Research by Rawlins (2008) and by Yee and Yeung (2010) has demonstrated the importance of benevolence as a determinant of trust. Behavioral Intentions Behavioral intentions towards an organization may be favorable or unfavorable (Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996), and they may indicate physica l action, as in purchase or donation, or verbal action, as in word of mouth (WOM) recommendations (Hong & Yang, 2009; Sargeant & Lee, 2004; Zeithaml et al., 1996). As the term implies, ticular behavior, a (Zeithaml, et al., 1996, p. 33). Research has demonstrate d the value of measuring behavioral intentions as an indication of actual behavior and also the importance of attitude to the development of behavioral intentions (Ajzen, 1991; Fazio, Powell & Williams, 1989; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975). Similar results have been found within the study of organization public relationships, in which relational attitudes have been shown to have an effect on behavioral intentions (Bruning, 2002; Ki & Hon, 2007). Positive and Negative Behavioral Intentions Positive, or favorable, behavioral intentions are those which indicate supportive behaviors that provide benefits for an organization behaviors such as the intent to

PAGE 45

45 donate or increase donation amounts to a charitable nonprofit, intention to work hard for an employer, intentio n to purchase a product or service, or the intention to propose legislation supportive of the industry (L. A. Grunig, J. E. Grunig & Ehling, 1992; Ki & Hon, 2007). Positive behavioral intentions may also come in the form of positive word of mouth intentio ns (WOMI), such as the willingness to recommend a product, service, or company, or the intention to encourage others to join or support an organization communication includes any infor mation about a target object (e.g., company, brand) transferred from one individual to another either in person or via some communication Similarly, the effect of trust may be viewed as preventing neg ative behavioral intentions and WOMI, such as the intent to seek restrictive legislation, complain about a company or product to friends and family, or forgo donations to a charitable nonprofit organization. Zeithaml et al., (1996) described unfavorable b ehavioral intentions and WOMI of consumers: Consumers perceiving service performance to be inferior are likely to exhibit behaviors signaling they are poised to leave the company or spend less with the company. These behaviors include complaining, which i s dissatisfaction and predict or accompany defection. (p. 34) Trust and Behavioral Intentions Prior sections have demonstrated that trust is an indicator of quality in organization public relat ionships and it has been shown to impact the behavioral intentions of stakeholders. Key determinants of trust include integrity, competence and goodwill. Trust can further be viewed as an attitude (Jones, 1996). Ki and Hon (2007) incorporated trust as a determinant of attitude in their examination of the effect of

PAGE 46

46 attitude on behavioral intention. Whereas the study confirmed the effect of attitude on behavioral intent, trust was not confirmed as having a significant effect on attitude. Similarly, in an other study, trust was positively related to behavioral intent, even after controlling for customer attitude (Mattila, 2007). A possible reason for lack of effect of trust on attitude and its direct impact on behavioral intentions is that trust is, in itse lf, an attitude. As Jones (1996) said: Trust is an attitude of optimism that the goodwill and competence of another will extend to cover the domain of our interaction with [them], together with the expectation that the one trusted will be directly and fav orably moved by the thought that we are counting on [them]. (p. 4) dependability/capabilities of some other agent (maybe itself) or with respect to the turn ker & Treur, 1999, p. 221). This chapter of the dissertation study has illustrated two major points: (1) research has shown that attitudes may lead to behavioral intentions (Ajzen, 1991; Bruning, 2002; Fazio, Powell & Williams, 1989; Fishbein & Ajzen, 197 5; Ki & Hon, 2007), and (2) trust can be defined as an attitude (Jones, 1996; Jonker & Treur, 1999). As such, logic suggests that development of trust should lead to positive behavioral intentions towards an organization, including the intent to purchase, donate, recommend the organization or product, or simply the intent to remain a customer or client rather than seek an alternative provider. Transparency Transparency is a broad concept applied to societal sectors such as government, business, and nonprof its, and down to specific segments such as the financial and

PAGE 47

47 transparency has become established during recent decades as a necessity in the fight against organizational a nd individual irregularities (corruption, fraud, financial scandals) of an organizatio Transparency is typically defined as: The deliberate attempt to make available all legally releasable information whether positive or negative in nature in a manner that is accurate, timely, balanced, and unequivocal, for the purpose of enhancing the reasoning ability of publics and holding organizations accoun table for their actions, policies, and practices. (Rawlins, 2009, p. 75) There are two major approaches to the conceptualization of transparency, both of which consider transparency a multi dimensional construct (Auger, 2010; Rawlins, 2009). One approach conceptualizes transparency as a communicative process, for example, a process that is accurate, timely, balanced and unequivocal. The other approach conceptualizes transparency as an organizational trait, which results from being accurate, timely, balance d and unequivocal. Supporting the first approach, relevant, timely, and reliable information, in written and verbal form, to investors, regulators and market intermediar about the free flow of information within an organization and between the organization 21). Moreover, provision of information and transparency are often tied to accountability. Guidestar (2008), an online organizer and

PAGE 48

48 is closely linked with accou ntability, as the release of relevant information helps request often acts as an impediment to disclosur e and frustrates meaningful purpose of transparency. It can obfuscate, rather made to stakeholders, however. Transparency either pervades the organization or is merely a clever one way mirror attempting to hide the Furthermore, transparency may not only obfuscate information, but it may also bring about negative consequences for organizations. Hultman and Axelsson (2007) supplier re lationships could bring about not only positive, but also some negative effects. In fact, increased transparency may Pasquier and Villeneuve (2007) documented five or ganizational behaviors that can restrict transparency: (1) non transparency, where organizations are not required by law to be transparent and, therefore, are not; (2) averted transparency, whereby the organization actively and illegally prevents access to information; (3) obstructed transparency, whereby the organization uses all legal means to limit access to information; (4) strained transparency, which involves consciously or unconsciously limited access to information because of limited resources or fa miliarity with the

PAGE 49

49 documents; and (5) maximized transparency, whereby all information is made available but without filing systems, indexes or registers to help organize or find the information 152). In other words, organizations may provide all the information relating to an issue, involving hundreds of documents, which make it difficult for those interested to find the specific information they seek, if no index or othe r document organizing material is also supplied. Determinants of Transparency Rawlins (2009) suggested four determinants of transparent communicative processes: participation, substantial information, accountability, and a reverse item factor for substant ial information (secrecy). Details and definitions of each follow below. Participation Participation is one of the key determinants of communicative transparency, embodying the concept of feedback and interaction with stakeholders. Within participation a re found such concepts as willingness to receive information and criticism from stakeholders and to act upon this information (Rawlins, 2009). also allows stakeholders to both view and respond to the information with comments, qu p. 89). Further, among the principles of risk communication indicated by Menon and responsibility (e.g.,

PAGE 50

50 376), behavior which promotes the concept of stakeholder participation. Similarly, Na their views and share their expertise from their home or office computers will entice active parti cipants if transparency is to occur; it is not enough for governments to simply Substantial Information Substantial information relates to the type, quantity, and quality of information provided or available to stakeholders. Rawlins (2009) included the concepts of timeliness, relevance, accuracy, reliability, and clarity to represent the determinant of transparency that he labeled, substantial information Bandsuch, et al. (2008) described a similar concept in corporate gove furnish information that is honest, intelligible, meaningful, timely, and broadly 110). They defined these concepts as follows: Accurate information reliably represents the comp comprehensive and relevant data. Comprehensive data provide complete information about ownership, performance, and management. Relevant data provide stakeholders with information they desire and will likely use to make decisions a bout their relationship with the company. Relevancy also implies timeliness, affording stakeholders the opportunity to utilize desired information. (p. 110) and improv Accountability Accountability is a term frequently found in discussions of transparency and often associated with financial accountability or crisis (Ball, 2009; GuideStar, 2008). Menon

PAGE 51

51 and Goh (2005) suggested t his determinant of transparency when they defined transparent with relevant information is how developed by Rawlins (2009), accountability was measured through such concepts as being open to criticism, providing information that might be damaging to the 90). Secrecy The secrecy determinant was developed by Rawlins (2009) as a reverse item dimension for substantial information Questions involved concepts such as timeliness, relevance, accuracy, reliability, and clarity. Bennis, et al., (2008) highlighted the importance of leadership and lack of secrecy : Leaders who will thrive and whose organizations will flourish in this era of ubiquitous electronic tattletales are the ones who strive to make their organizations as transparent as possible. Despite legitimate moral and legal limits on disclosure, leade With regard to the factors for organizational transparency, Rawlins (2009) suggested three determinants: integrity, respect, and openness. Integrity Defined earlier as a determinant also of t rust within the organizational transparency scale (Rawlins, 2009), integrity contained such concepts as organizational competence, reliability, intelligence, and standards of ethics.

PAGE 52

52 Respect Within the construct of organizational transparency, respect re fers to an discussion of risk communication, Menon and Goh (2005) imply respect when they them composed of concepts such as sensitivity, willingness to listen, flexibility, and perception of a caring and personal nature (Rawlins, 2009). Openness Opennes s is a term often used in conjunction with transparency and sometimes as the definition of transparency (Auger, 2010). Defined by Menon and Goh (2005), third of three organiza tional transparency traits identified by Rawlins (2009), openness was described as incorporating concepts such as sincerity, credibility openness, truthfulness, consistency, disclosure, and candidness. Transparency and Trust Scholars argue that the benefi ts of transparency range from building trust transparency that include encouraging organ izational accountability, commitment, collaboration, and cooperation, and increasing competence (Jahansoozi, 2007; substance to claims of authenticity, legitimacy, and credibili ty as well as to the

PAGE 53

53 Moreover, transparency can contribute to positive outcomes in the case of organizational misdeeds and ethical lapses. In such cases, transparency can help to restore trust, curtai l employee dissatisfaction, and diminish reputational risk or damage (Bandsuch et al., 2008; Rawlins, 2009). In addition, transparency may reduce shareholder uncertainty and limit loss of competitive advantage (Economist, 2004; Welch & Welch, 2007). In t urn, each of these contributions from transparency translate into such bottom line benefits as financial viability, program sustainability, and at times, the very existence of the organization. Recently, Rawlins (2008) investigated the relationships betwee n trust and transparency and found that transparency in communication efforts was also a determinant of trust: In particular, organizations that encourage and allow public participation, share substantial information so their publics can make informed deci sions, give balanced reports that hold them accountable, and open themselves up to public scrutiny, are more likely to be trusted. (p. 425) Within the last two decades, a variety of financial and other crises have resulted in demands for increased organiz ational transparency in the government (Ashwell, 2010; Snider & Park, 2010), business (Bandsuch, Pate & Thies, 2008), and the nonprofit sector (Brody, 2002), in telecommunication (Axtman & Scherer, 2002), financial and banking industries (Crittenden, 2006; SEC, 2006), and more recently, deep water oil drilling (Rogoff, 2010). Such demands come as the result of loss of public confidence and trust in these sectors and industries and indicate the perceived importance of transparency in everyday operations. B ecause the demands for increased transparency tend to be related to situations in which transparency was lacking, benefits of transparency are often phrased in the negative, for example with reference to

PAGE 54

54 2008; Jahansoozi, 2007), rather than from the positive perspective. Transparency, Trust and Positive Behavioral Intentions Transparency is built through honest and ethical behavior and communication with stakeholders. Rawlins (2009) argued that: Transpa rency enhances the ethical nature of organizations in two ways: first, it holds organizations accountable for their actions and policies; and second, it respects the autonomy and reasoning ability of individuals who deserve to have access to information th at might affect their position in life. (p. 77) As such, honest and ethical behavior and communication with stakeholders understand organizational behavior and policies, providing and making important information accessi ble, and justifying the withholding of information or provision of partial information (Rawlins, 2009). Such transparent behavior then lends itself to trust. considers the i Studies have shown that positive attitudes such as trust, lead to positive behavioral intentions (Ajzen, 1991; Fazio, Powell & Williams, 1989; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975), which in turn ma (Handy, 2000; Sargeant & Lee, 2004), higher company earnings (Ben Ner & Putterman, 2009), and stronger relational commitment (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Sargeant & Lee, 2004). Thus, the relation ships between organizational transparency and trust and behavioral intentions can be schematically represented as demonstrated in Figure 2 2. Within this figure, organizational transparency leads to trust, whereupon the organization builds the relationshi p through communicative transparency, thereby

PAGE 55

55 reinforcing stakeholder trust which in turn leads to positive behavioral intentions from these stakeholders. Charitable Nonprofit Organizations Whereas the importance of transparency and its related attribute o f trust are important for all organizations, it can be argued that the need for transparency is different for a charitable nonprofit than for a business entity. As Bekkers (2003) argued: ten do not know what happens exactly to their donations, how much is saved for overhead costs, and where the money is actually spent. This lack of transparency is dangerous because an occasional media report of poor performance and misallocation of funds may easily scandalize the entire philanthropic sector. (p. 596) Charitable nonprofit organizations fulfill roles in society different than those of business and government and even from other types of nonprofit organizations (Jeavons, 2001; Kearns, 1996; Kelly, 1998; Salamon, 2003). They are created to fulfill needs of society for which government is unwilling or unable to provide service, or where founders of the charitable nonprofit see a need to be filled in society that is not being met adequately els ewhere, or where it is not possible for the general public to judge the quality of the services provided (Brody, 2002; Jeavons, 2001; Salamon, 2003). And the sector is steadily growing in size and importance. As Czerwinski (2007) noted: While the majorit y of nonprofit organizations have relatively small operating or had over 9.6 million employees, about 9 percent of the civilian workforce. Further, the sector has grown: the number of charitable organizations reporting almost tripled over the last two decades. (Introduction, para. 1)

PAGE 56

56 The term charitable nonprofit i s used here to distinguish philanthropic, or charitable, nonprofits, identified under the U.S. IRS Code as 501(c)(3) organizations, from the many other types of nonprofit organizations found in the remaining 26 categories of the 501(c) tax code, including civic leagues, chambers of commerce, and cemetery companies among others. Kelly (2008) explained how charitable nonprofits are differentiated from other nonprofits. She noted that: Nonprofits that have been granted charitable status are usually classifie d under the 501(c)(3) subsection. The primary difference between them and other nonprofits, such as chambers of commerce, is that gifts to charitable non charitable nonprofits are not (p. 2) Tax Exempt Organizations and Nonexempt Charitable Trusts in 2009, an increase of ion of nonprofits were 501(c)(3) organizations. As Kelly (2008) explained: It is important to note that charitable organization is a legal term and does not mean that all organizations classified as such deal with charity, or alleviating suffering of the n eedy. Indeed, charity constitutes a small portion of the work of U.S. charitable organizations; most deal with philanthropy, or promoting human progress. (p. 1915) Characteristics of Charitable Nonprofit Organizations Among the characteristics that distin guish charitable nonprofit organizations from their for profit counterparts is the restriction from distributing funds to those who control the organization, called the nondistribution constraint, (Brody, 2002; Kelly, 1998) and the difference in the exchan ge relationship between these organizations and the stakeholders who provide the funds that at least partially support them. According to Czerwinski (2007), most Americans interact with a wide variety of these organizations on a daily basis. He argued th at:

PAGE 57

57 Virtually every American interacts with the nonprofit sector in his or her daily life through a broad range of concerns and activities such as health care, education, human services, job training, religion, and cultural pursuits. In addition, federal, state, and local governments rely on nonprofit organizations as key partners in implementing programs and providing services to the public. (Czerwinski, 2007, p. 13) Yet whereas nonprofit organizations can be distinguished from their for profit counterpar ts, within the nonprofit sector, organizations share few similarities. As Kelly (2008) identified: Nonprofits share only a few common characteristics: (1) they are private, which distinguishes them from government; (2) they do not distribute profits to th ose who control the organization, which distinguishes them from business; and (3) they are voluntary and self governing. (pp. 1 2) Further, those who provide the capital for provision of services in the charitable nonprofit may not be the consumers of tho se services (Jeavons, 2001; Kearns, 2001), whereas purchasers of consumer goods or services are generally expected to personally use or gift those goods or services. Handy (2000) described the role of kers a charitable transaction Public Trust Within the literature there are scholars who argue that charitable nonprofit organizations are deemed trustworthy by their existence and foundation as nonprofit entities, the establishment of which requires public trust and implies trustworthiness ( Brody, 2002; Handy, 2000; Jeavons, 2001). Other scholars argue that because charitable nonprofit organizations rely on public trust for their existence, they should aim

PAGE 58

58 to dispel misunderstanding of the sector, which may threaten the sector (Kearns, 2001; Salamon, 2003). According to Jeavons (2001), establishment of charitable nonprofit organizations rests on a foundation of public expectation, or trust. He argued: function of private nonprofit, especially philanthropic, organizations in our society. These organizations are given a special standing, and even certain legal advantages over other private organizations, on the basis of the promise that they will serve the public good. The public expects these organizations to be motivated by and adhere to such a commitment in their performance. The public also expects that these organizations will honor a set of widely accepted moral and humanitarian values deriving from these organizatio and that they (virtually) never act in a self serving manner. (p. 109) trustworthiness, bestows a halo on any nonprofit organization rega easily observed by the donor; it declares that the organization is subject to certain laws core of the reason for the existence of these organizations and their ability to satisfy ost nonprofit organizations, their capacity to garner resources and so to survive and carry out their missions Yet public expectation paired with a general misunderstanding of the nonprofit sector suggested that reasons for the mysteriousness of the sector stem from its size and

PAGE 59

59 diversity; a complicated financial structure with revenue from a variety of sources, lack of understanding of the government funding/nonprofit relationship, and ignorance of the subsi Kearns argued that the governance structure of charitable nonprofits can also be confusing to the general public and lend an air of mystery because trustees of these organiza tions are rarely public figures. As the result of this widespread misunderstanding, Kearns argued that confidence in the sector could be undermined by legal and approp Salamon (2003) also addressed the question of misunderstanding of the sector, rationale, parallel efforts must be made to communicate this vision to the p ublic and be introduced to the broader realities of current nonprofit operation, to the remarkable resilience that the sector has shown in recent years, and to the f ull range of special suggested that the public be better informed of the long standing relationship with government, the need to engage in market means as a source of revenue, and the importance of development of codes of conduct and communication of those codes to the greater public to help dispel misunderstanding and improve understanding of the sector.

PAGE 60

60 Trust and Accountability The need to dispel misunderstanding and to maint ain public trust in charitable nonprofit organizations leads to the question of accountability in what is considered an implicit social contract (Guidestar, 2008; Jeavons, 2001). As Guidestar (2008) noted: Nonprofit organizations have a social contract to fulfill. Exemption from taxation and, in many cases, the ability to receive tax deductible contributions, creates an obligation for nonprofits to be accountable to the public. Being transparent with relevant information is how nonprofits demonstrate tha Similarly, Jeavons (2001) suggested: Trust is the essential lifeblood of the nonprofit sector trust that nonprofits will fulfill this implicit social contract. And to ensure that this trust is sustained, five core values must permeate these organizations, shaping their ethics. These values are integrity, openness, accountability, service and charity (in the original sense of the word). (p. 109) ch aracter and function, expectations about what constitutes ethical behavior in and by nonprofit, and especially philanthropic, organizations differ from expectations placed on However, the concept of accountability is complex and the needs of accountability may differ by stakeholder group, for example, state government, federal government, clients, or donors (Brody, 2002; Jeavons, 2001). As Brody (2002) explained: f the term is not self evident. To the contrary, it means different things to different people. This poses a particular challenge to charities because they, perhaps more than other social institutions, depend on public trust, and this trust involves mult iple sometimes conflicting demands from a variety of stakeholders. (p. 472) the right to solicit tax

PAGE 61

61 ccept an obligation to be ready to answer not only to their members but to the broader public as well, for the way they use resources that would otherwise have gone into the Czerwinski (2007) noted that within the government: Con cerns about accountability and transparency of nonprofit organizations have grown in recent years. In 2004 and 2005, the Senate Finance Committee held hearings to look more closely at practices that are illegal or not in keeping with standards typical of the charitable sector. (p. 10) Among the recommendations brought forth by the Senate Finance Committee hearings were proposals for increased oversight of the sector. Walker (2005) explained: (IRS) has a key role in overseeing the tax exempt sector. Oversight can help sustain public faith in the sector and ensure that exempt entities stay true to the purposes that justify their tax exemption. It also can help protect the entire sector from po tential abuses initiated by a small minority. (p. 1) Some argue that the nondistribution constraint provides the foundation for public trust without additional accountability (Brody, 2002; Handy, 2000); yet it may not always curtail problems. As Brody ( (p. 477). Handy (2000) agreed, noting that: One of the reasons that nonprofit organizations have a comparative a dvantage over other organizational forms is that the nondistribution constraint renders them trustworthy in many transactions that require trust. However, the nondistribution constraint in and of itself may not be sufficient, and nonprofits must actively gain public trust. (p. 439) Transparency in Charitable Nonprofit Organizations Charitable nonprofit organizations are founded on public trust, which is granted with an implicit social contract that they will fulfill the purposes of their missions (Guides tar, 2008; Jeavons, 2001). As charitable nonprofit entities these organizations

PAGE 62

62 are accountable to a wide variety of stakeholders who may have different and sometimes conflicting means of determining such accountability (Brody, 2002; Jeavons, 2001). Incr eased demands for accountability in the wake of scandals and poor management (Brody, 2002; Czerwinski, 2007) highlight the importance of transparency for these organizations as a means of increasing understanding of the sector, understanding that scholars argue is important to the continuance of public trust (Kearns, 2001; Salamon, 2003). Moreover, as described in an earlier section of this dissertation, the construct of transparency is closely tied to trust. And Walker (2005) highlighted the importance of transparency to charitable nonprofit organizations: Good governance and transparency are essential elements to ensure that tax exempt entities operate with integrity and effectiveness in carrying out their missions. Governance facilitates well run opera tions that dissuade enhances incentives for ethical, efficient, and effective operations and facilitates oversight by the public and others. (p. 4) Crisis Situations Crises happen to all types of organizations, from charitable nonprofit organizations to for profit businesses, and governmental divisions. As Mitroff and Anagnos (2001) 4). threatens important expectancies of stakeholders and can seriously impact an key traits of crisis are that they are unexpected (we might know one might hit but not 36). Fink (1986), however, argued that crises are not

PAGE 63

63 change is impending either one with the distinct possibility of a highly undesirable outcome or one with the dist inct possibility of a highly desirable and extremely positive (p. 15). Conversely, Co ombs and Holladay (1996) suggested that crises threaten an organization: A crisis can be viewed as a threat to an organization. The threat reflects the potential of a crisis to do reputational (image) damage. The key reputational concerns are trustworthi conform to the social expectations of stakeholders. In turn, reputational damage can be translated into financial damage and even threaten the ions that stakeholders hold about how organizations should act. Planes should land safely, products should not harm us, (Coombs, 2007b, p. 3). In other words, crises can violate trust that stakeholders have placed in an organization. As a result, organizational reputations and relations between the organization and its stakeholders may be damaged, leading to loss of customers, shareholders, donors, or volunteers, and may potentially lead to reduced organizational viability, or the inability to operate (Coombs, 2006). All companies have the potential to be affected by crises. As Alsop (2004) noted, f crises, but the most commonplace involve corporate misconduct, product failures, or disastrous

PAGE 64

64 Research by Lee (200 4) indicated that attributions of responsibility for crisis were higher for crises seen as having an internal (preventable) cause rather than an external 611 612). As Coombs and Ho about the cause of a crisis. The more publics attribute responsibility for a crisis to an Coombs (2007c) explained th people search for the cause of events (make attributions), especially for those that are experience an emotional reaction t through Attribution Theory are anger and sympathy, which can serve as motivations for action. Such actions may be positive, as in the case of sympathy, or negative, in the avioral responses are negative when a person is judged responsible and anger is evoked. Behavioral responses are positive when a orm an unfavorable impression suggested that in such cases, perception is more important than reality. Said Benoit

PAGE 65

65 ness is in fact responsible for the offensive act, but whether the firm is thought to be responsible for it by the relevant positive perception when crises occur. He ex companies like DuPont start from a position of strength. Their reputation precedes ing a savings account for a rainy day. If a crisis relationship or crisis history appears to be no different than the neutral condition where negative reputation. We ter m this negative result the Velcro effect. A performance Holladay, 2001, p. 335). Crisis Response and Communication Crisis response involves communication. According t individual or company reacts can be far more important than the circumstances of the Moreover, Lee (2004) suggested that how organizations respond to crises can affect stakeholders perceptions serving attempt to avoid onsibility may appear

PAGE 66

66 Coombs (2007b) proposed four crisis communication response strategy postures: the denial, diminishment, rebuilding, and bolstering postures. Research has sho wn that the type of crisis response strategy chosen to communicate to stakeholders during and post crisis can also influence the extent of damage to organization public relationships (Coombs, 1998, 2006; Koster & Politis Norton, 2004; Lee, 2004; Matilla, 2 007). Several studies have indicated the benefits of the apology response versus the denial response (Lee, 2004; Matilla, 2007), yet Coombs & Holladay (2008) contended that accommodating, rather than apologetic responses such as sympathy and compensation, are equally effective response strategies in certain types of crisis. settings and that publicly apologizing for the event can somewhat mitigate the negative for the event is also important in order to avoid highly damaging intentional harm ac tually can worsen the situation. Stakeholders begin to think the crisis must be worse Recently, Huang (2008) added to the crisis communication literature through conceptualiza tion and measurement of the form of crisis response taken by the organization. In her study, Huang argued that the form of response taken to present crisis messages to stakeholders can also influence their perception of the situation and may be more import ant that the response strategy selected. She suggested three forms of response: timely response, consistent response, and active response. A timely

PAGE 67

67 response implies availability of the organization to provide information and information is presented as s oon as possible, whereas the consistent response provides information in a contradictory The forms of crisis response suggested by Huang (2008) reflect strong similarities transparency may contribute additio nal depth to the concept of form of crisis response by adding to and expanding it. Development of Hypotheses In crisis situations, lack of transparency can lead to loss of trust (Bergin, 2010; Furman, 2010). Frequently paired in discussions and reports on crisis situations, lack of transparency is seen as a determinant of crisis situations in which increased information may have prevented the crisis from happening, or escalating, whereas loss of trust is seen as the result of organizational or situational act to reinforce existing trust levels and mitigate loss of trust (Bandsuch, et al., 2008; Rawlins, 2008, 2009). In addition, form of res ponse has been shown to have a greater effect on trust and relational commitment than choice of strategy (Huang, 2008). As such, organizations of all types that are communicatively transparent in a crisis situation should have higher trust levels and grea ter positive behavioral intentions from stakeholders than organizations that are communicatively non transparent. Figures 2 3 and 2.4 illustrate the difference of transparent response versus non transparent response in a crisis situation. In both Figure s 2 3 and 2 4, organizational

PAGE 68

68 transparency leads to trust at which point a crisis situation intervenes in the relationship. Figure 2 3 illustrates the transparent communication process wherein the organization responds to the crisis with transparent commu nication, which reinforces stakeholder trust and leads to positive behavioral intentions. Conversely, Figure 2 4 illustrates the non transparent communication process wherein the organization responds to the crisis by withholding information or other non transparent forms of response, which weakens stakeholder trust and leads to limited levels of positive behavioral intentions. Moreover, research has demonstrated the link between communicative transparency and trust (Rawlins, 2008), but there has been no study to date that transparency (communicative transparency) has been shown to have a significant effect on trust (Rawlins, 2008), it can be hypothesized that a reputation for or ganizational transparency combined with communicative transparency will have a greater effect on trust than communicative transparency individually, regardless of type of organization. Moreover, it can also be hypothesized that a reputation for organizati onal transparency may also serve to mitigate loss of trust when organizations do not communicate transparently. Thus the following hypotheses are posed: Hypothesis 1: Within charitable nonprofit organizations, there is an interaction between reputation fo r organizational transparency and communicative form of response on trust and behavioral intentions, such that transparent organizations that communicate transparently have greater stakeholder trust and positive behavioral intentions in crisis situations t han: H1a: Non transparent organizations that do not communicate transparently;

PAGE 69

69 H1b: Transparent organizations that do not communicate transparently; H1c: Non transparent organizations that communicate transparently. Hypothesis 2: Within for profit business es, there is an interaction between reputation for organizational transparency and communicative form of response on trust and behavioral intentions, such that transparent businesses that communicate transparently have greater stakeholder trust and positiv e behavioral intentions in crisis situations than: H2a: Non transparent businesses that do not communicate transparently; H2b: Transparent businesses that do not communicate transparently; H2c: Non transparent businesses that communicate transparently. It has also been argued here that within both charitable nonprofit organizations and for profit businesses, organizational transparency and communicative transparency contribute to the building of trust and realization of positive behavioral outcomes from sta keholders (Rawlins, 2008, 2009). However, because of the differences in societal roles fulfilled by these different types of organizations (Jeavons, 2001; Kearns, 1996; Kelly, 1998; Salamon, 2003) and given a crisis situation, the effect of transparency o n charitable nonprofit organizations may be different than the effect on a for profit business. Charitable nonprofit organizations are not immune from crises any more so than businesses (Brody, 2001; Kearns, 1996; Salamon, 2002; Stephenson & Chaves, 2006) and because they are founded on public trust and may have the halo effect described by Brody (2002), the effect of such crises may be less than for their business counterparts.

PAGE 70

70 Moreover, Handy et al., (2010) found that given a choice, consumers preferre d to use a nonprofit organization for education and healthcare needs and they held greater trust in nonprofit organizations than for profit business. As a result, the general public may be more willing to trust a charitable nonprofit organization than a fo r profit business in a crisis situation. Furthermore, whereas there have been examinations and case studies of crises in nonprofit (Stephenson & Chaves, 2006) and for profit (Blaney, Benoit, & Brazeal, 2002), organizational contexts there has been no comp arative study of the effect of crisis situations on charitable nonprofit organizations and for profit businesses. Therefore, based on the literature, which suggests the very foundation of charitable nonprofits rests on public trust, and given that consume rs have been shown to place greater trust in nonprofit organizations than businesses (Handy et al., 2010), the following hypothesis is posed: Hypothesis 3: There is an interaction among organization type, reputation for organizational transparency and comm unicative form of response on stakeholder trust and positive behavioral intentions in crisis situations. Summary of Hypotheses Based on the literature relating to organization public relationships, trust, behavioral intentions, transparency, charitable non profit organizations, and crisis communication three hypotheses and six sub hypotheses were developed. This study incorporated three broad hypotheses linking the constructs of transparency, trust and behavioral intentions in a comparative measure between charitable nonprofit organizations and for profit businesses. Following are the hypotheses and sub hypotheses:

PAGE 71

71 Hypothesis 1: Within charitable nonprofit organizations there is an interaction between reputation for organizational transparency and communica tive form of response on trust and behavioral intentions, such that transparent organizations that communicate transparently have greater stakeholder trust and positive behavioral intentions in crisis situations than: H1a: Non transparent organizations tha t do not communicate transparently; H1b: Transparent organizations that do not communicate transparently; H1c: Non transparent organizations that communicate transparently. Hypothesis 2: Within for profit businesses there is an interaction between reputati on for organizational transparency and communicative form of response on trust and behavioral intentions, such that transparent businesses that communicate transparently have greater stakeholder trust and positive behavioral intentions in crisis situations than: H2a: Non transparent businesses that do not communicate transparently; H2b: Transparent businesses that do not communicate transparently; H2c: Non transparent businesses that communicate transparently. Hypothesis 3: There is an interaction among organization type, reputation for organizational transparency and communicative form of response on stakeholder trust and positive behavioral intentions in crisis situations.

PAGE 72

72 Figure 2 1. Model of trust (Li & Betts, 2005, p. 5). Figure 2 2. Schema of relationship among transparency, trust, and behavioral intentions Risk Calculated Probability Expectation Trustworthiness Trust Behavioral Intentions Action Organizational Transparency Communicative Transparency Trust Behavioral Intentions Reinforced Trust

PAGE 73

73 Figure 2 3. Transparent communication effect on stakeholder trust in crisis situation Figure 2 4. Non transparent communication effect on stakeholder trust in crisis situation Organizational Transparency Transparent Response (Communicative Transparency) Trust Positive Behavioral Intentions Reinforced Trust Crisis Event Organizational Transparency Non transparent Response (Non communicative Transparency) Trust Lack of Positive Behavioral Intentions Weakened Trust Crisis Event

PAGE 74

74 CHAPTER 3 METHOD The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of transparency on trust and positive behavioral intentions of stakeholders. Specifically, the study examined the relationships between organizational transparency and communicative transparency in two d ifferent types of organizations, and the effect of transparency on trust and behavioral intentions of organizational stakeholders, given a crisis situation. For this study, a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial, post test only control group experimental design was used: (transparent organization vs. non transparent organization) x (charitable nonprofit organizations vs. for profit businesses) x (communicative transparency in crisis response vs. non transparent communication in crisis response). Individual variable types in each independent variable pair served as the control for the other in the pair. For example, the transparent organization served as the control for the non transparent organization, and vice versa. One way analysis of variance (1 way ANOVA) or two wa y analysis of variance (2 way ANOVA) was used to analyze the effectiveness of the experimental manipulations and the effect of independent variables (organizational transparency, type of organization, and communicative transparency) on dependent variables (trust and positive behavioral intentions) and their interactions. To clarify, in Chapter 2 the researcher discussed both positive and negative behavioral intentions but for the purposes of this study, behavioral intentions refer only to positive behaviora l intentions, or the lack of positive behavioral intentions, lack of which does not necessarily imply negative behavioral intentions. To comply with the needs of statistical analysis, and following commonly accepted practice, a minimum of 30 completed re sponses was necessary for each of the eight

PAGE 75

75 treatment blocks to provide for reasonable generalizability; thus, the total minimum number of participants needed for the experiment was 240. As Agresti and Finley (2009) noted, the larger sample size allows fo r the use of the F test rather than the t test for statistical analysis, which reduces the potential for a Type I error whereby hypotheses may be incorrectly rejected. The researcher considered both survey method and experimental method for this study and chose the experimental design because it provided the best form for determining the relative causality of organizational transparency and communicative transparency on trust and behavioral intentions of stakeholders. As Aronson, Ellsworth, Carlsmith, and Of the true experimental designs suggested by Stanley and Campbell (1963), the researcher selected the post test only control grou p design because it provides the et al., 1990, p. 141), but it improves external validity by eliminating pre test sensitization. Pilot Studies A pilot study took place in early February 2011 to evaluate the effectiveness of experimental manipulation of the independent variables. The experiment was launched the researcher. Because the final study would use participants from the general public program was set to randomly provide each of the eight different experimental blocks in equal proportion but due to the non response rate and limited number of participants, block 6 received just one completed response. To compensate for this shortage, five

PAGE 76

76 undergraduate student participants were recruited to complete experimental block 6 and their data were en tered manually into the results. In total 64 participants began the pilot and 37, including the students, completed the pilot for a response rate of 57.8%. The pilot study helped the researcher identify potential problems with the dissemination of the stu dy, for example; the noticeably different number of responses on experimental block 6 compared to the other blocks. To compensate for this potential difficulty in the main study, the researcher negotiated to pay the panel recruitment company only for comp leted responses to the experiment, to purchase an additional 60 participants for a total of 300 and to set quotas for each experimental block. Review of sh those participants who are less than 18 years old or who do not wish to participate to the end of the survey when they select from the age and willingness to participate choices. Results of the pilot study also indicated a lack of demographic data and t wo questions were added, one requesting gender and one requesting age, for the launch of the main study. Results of the manipulation check from the pilot study showed that the manipulation for organizational transparency was working for the nonprofit exper imental blocks and was close to significant for the for profit experimental blocks; however, the manipulation for communicative transparency was effective for the nonprofit groups and completely ineffective for the for profit groups. As a result, the res earcher re wrote all the manipulations to better differentiate the positive aspects of transparency such as being humble, caring, responsive, and competent, from the negative, such as arrogance, uncaring, incompetent, and unethical.

PAGE 77

77 Results of the final s tudy manipulations can be found in Chapter 4 and details of the experimental manipulations can be found in Appendix A. Main Study Participants Participants were recruited from the population of the general public who use the Internet by United Sample Comp any, a professional panel recruitment firm. The individuals were randomly assigned to one of eight experimental block treatment groups by the Qualtrics software program. This randomization provides for greater internal validity. As Trochim (2001) stated, groups, and you have enough people in your study to achieve the desired probabilistic equivalence, you can consider the e xperiment strong in internal validity and you ns at random we can assume that they measure them before the treatment to check on their equivalence, since randomization ensures that there are no factors which systemat Stimuli Organizational transparency To manipulate organizational transparency, two newspaper articles were created to provide an image of either a transparent or non transparent organizational reputation (see Appendix A). Words and phrases from the measurement scales were used within the body of each fictitious article. The first article, representing a transparent

PAGE 78

78 organization, included quotes and description of the organization that incorporated the factors of int egrity, respect for others, and openness. Integrity included descriptions of competence, commitment to do good, reliability, ethics, and intelligence. Respect included descriptions that implied a willingness to listen, sensitivity, and characteristics th at portrayed a caring, humble, personal and flexible organization. Openness portrayed the organization as credible, open, truthful, and consistent. The second article, representing a non transparent organization, also used words and phrases from the meas urement scale and provided quotes and description that incorporated reversed item factors for integrity, respect and openness such as closed, deceptive, inconsistent, unreliable, unethical, incompetent, inflexible, uncaring, and unwilling to listen. Both articles described an identical background history for the organization and the same situation, in which the organization was building a water purification center for a very poor southern Louisiana town. Types of organization For the manipulation for type of organization, each organizational transparency treatment (transparent organization vs. non transparent organization) was applied to both a charitable nonprofit organization and to a for profit business. To do so, each article incorporated a descriptio n of the organization that described it as either (1) a charitable nonprofit organization or (2) a for profit business and included description of the management structure, either (1) volunteer board of directors, or (2) corporate board of directors; menti oned either (1) donors and volunteers, or (2) shareholders and customers; and included information about either (1) happy or disgruntled recipients of program services, or (2) satisfied or dissatisfied customers.

PAGE 79

79 Communicative transparency Manipulation of the third independent variable (communicative transparency vs. non transparent communication) took the form of a second newspaper article describing a preventable crisis situation in which harmful bacteria were not removed from the water because employe es substituted a less expensive filtration system rather than the one recommended in the engineering design specifications. As a result, a young child and an elderly resident died and there was widespread illness. Each organizational type (transparent ch aritable nonprofit organization, non transparent charitable nonprofit organization, transparent for profit business, and non transparent for profit business) received the same crisis scenario; however, each type of organization received two treatments for form of response to the crisis: either (1) transparent form of response, or (2) non transparent form of response. The transparent response included communicative behaviors that encouraged stakeholder feedback, provided detailed information and informatio n that could be verified by a third party, was relevant, complete, and easy to understand. Further, the transparent response acknowledged mistakes and criticism, and was forthcoming with information that could be damaging to the organization. The non tra nsparent response included the reverse of some communicative behaviors such as incomplete information and information that could not be verified by a third party or information that was difficult to understand. Other factors included refutation of critici sm and refusal to admit mistakes or blaming of outside sources that could have contributed to the crisis.

PAGE 80

80 Measures Organizational transparency The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of transparency on trust and positive behavioral intention s of stakeholders. To verify the effectiveness of the manipulation of organizational transparency and communicative transparency, and to consider the differences in levels of these variables given different types of organizations and a crisis situation, t he scales developed by Rawlins (2009) to measure organizational transparency and communicative transparency were used. The scale for organizational transparency included items for the three factors of organizational transparency: integrity, respect, and o penness. Responses were posed in a 7 point Likert Semantic Differential scale, with anchors as indicated in Table 3 1, and no identifying descriptive words on points 2 through 6. Communicative transparency Within the literature there appears to be just one scale for measuring communicative transparency (Rawlins, 2008, 2009). Others have noted the characteristics of communicative transparency but did not provide a scale (e.g., Bandsuch et al., 2008). Table 3 2 provides details of the scale used for th is study, which replicates that used by Rawlins (2009). The table also describes the ordering of the questions within the questionnaire, for example, the first question measuring participation was presented to respondents as the 9 th question in the sectio n of the questionnaire relating to communicative transparency. Respondents were asked to indicate the extent to which they disagreed or agreed with the question on a 7 point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

PAGE 81

81 Trust Rawlins (2008) and Yee and Yeung (2010) developed similar scales for measuring trust, including the factors of integrity, competence, and either goodwill or communicative transparen cy on trust with internal stakeholders (employees) and Yee (2008) scale to this study seemed v alid and was used for measurement of trust. Table 3 3 lists the items in the scale and the order in which they were presented, for example, respondents received the first item representing integrity as the 11 th question of the trust section in the question naire. For each of the questions relating to trust, respondents were asked to determine the strength of their agreement with each item on a 7 point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree where 7 represented strongly agree, 4 was neu tral, and 1 was strongly disagree. Behavioral intentions Behavioral intentions may take the form of intended action, such as voting or attending a meeting, or the form of intended communication, for example by word of mouth, where one might recommend a product or service or discourage others from purchase or participation. As a result, behavioral intention scales vary by author. Hong and Yang (2009) provided a four item scale for word of mouth intentions in their study and Sargeant and Lee (2004) inclu ded a three item scale they described as Zeithaml et al. (1996) included 13 items in their behavioral intentions battery. Each of these three scales included variations o f speaking positively about the company,

PAGE 82

82 recommendations to friends and family, and encouraging friends and family to do business or support the organization. For the purposes of this study, items referring to recommendation were dropped from the scale b ecause individuals would not purchase Vortex Systems products and such recommendations would not make sense unless the individual was in the position of being able to recommend the products to city administrators. Three items were developed for this study (1996) scales. These items incorporated a 7 al. (1996) anchors, ranging from highly unlikely to highly likely. Table 3 4 provides detail of the final scale Procedure Participants were recruited by United Sample (USample) and compensated through an arrangement between the panel recruitment firm and the participants. Potential participants were directed to the Qualtrics survey site where they were first ask ed whether they were at least 18 years old and next, whether they agreed to participate based on the informed consent protocol. If they were at least 18 years old and agreed to participate they were assigned one of eight experimental treatment blocks each of which contained a pair of fictitious newspaper articles one manipulating organizational transparency and one manipulating communicative transparency and which referred to one type of organization (charitable nonprofit or for profit business). Within e ach treatment block, participants were asked to read article one, followed by article two and then to answer a series of questions pertaining to the company described within the articles. Following the question section, participants were provided with a b rief written explanation of the true focus of the experiment and disclaimers

PAGE 83

83 relating to the fictitious nature of the people, places, and companies described in the news articles. Appendix A contains text of the articles used in the experiment and illustr ations of the fictitious newspaper layouts used to deliver the articles.

PAGE 84

84 Table 3 1. Organizational transparency measurement items Integrity 11. Competent vs. Incompetent 4. Ethical vs. Unethical 10. Reliable vs. Unreliable 7. Intelligent vs. Unin telligent Respect 5. Sensitive vs. Insensitive 12. Willing to listen vs. Unwilling to listen 3. Impersonal vs. Personal 8. Flexible vs. Inflexible 13. Caring vs. Uncaring 15. Arrogant vs. Humble Openness 2. Sincere vs. Insincere 9. Credible vs. Not credible 6. Open vs. Closed 1. Deceptive vs. Truthful 14. Consistent vs. Inconsistent

PAGE 85

85 Table 3 2. Communicative transparency measurement items Participation 9. Asks for feedback from people like me about the quality of it s information. 22. Involves people like me to help identify the information I need. 14. Provides detailed information to people like me. 7. Makes it easy to find the information people like me need. 4. Asks the opinions of people like me before making decisions. 21. Takes the time with people like me to understand who we are and what we need. Substantial Information 25. Provides information that is relevant to people like me. 8. Provides in formation that could be verified by an outside source, like an auditor. 3. Provides information that can be compared to previous performance. 19. Provides information that is complete. 15. Provides information that is easy for people like me to understand. 2. Provides accurate information to people like me. 13. Provides information that is reliable. 16. Provides information to people like me in language that is clear. Accountability 24. Presents more than one side of controversial issues. 10. Is forthcoming with information that might be damaging to the organization. 1. Is open to criticism by people like me. 18. Freely admits when it has made mistakes. 6. Provides information that can be compared to industry standards. Substantia l Information (Reversed = Secrecy) 5. Often leaves out important details in the information it provides to people like me. 20. Provides information that is full of jargon and technical language that is confusing to people like me. 11. Blames outside factors that may have contributed to the outcome when reporting bad news. 23. Provides information that is intentionally written in a way to make it difficult to understand. 17. Is slow to provide information to people like me. 12. Only discloses information when it is required.

PAGE 86

86 Table 3 3. Trust measurement items Overall Trust 3. I think it is important to watch this organization closely so that it does not take advantage of people like me. [R] 11. I trust the organization to take care of people like me. Competence 12. I feel very confident about the skills of this organization. 10. This organization has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do. 2. This organization is known to be successful at the things it tries to do. Integrity 7. The organization treats people like me fairly and justly. 13. The organization can be relied on to keep its promises. 5. Sound principles seem t o guide the behavior of this organization. 9. This organization does not mislead people like me. Goodwill 4. Whenever this organization makes a decision I know it will be concerned about people like me. 1. I believe this organization takes the opinions of people like me into account when making decisions. 8. This organization is interested in the well being of people like me, not just itself. [R] = reverse item Table 3 4. Behavioral intentions measurement items Behavioral Intentions stormwater management by voting in favor of the purchase in the next election. 2. I would encourage friends and relatives to vote in favor of the purchase of V ortex Systems products in the next election. 3. I would say positive things about Vortex Systems to other people.

PAGE 87

87 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS In this chapter, results of the experiment described in chapter three are presented. The chapter begins with a review of demographic data, followed by description of data, and results of hypotheses testing. All testing and results were conducted at the 95% confidence level or ( p < .05 ). Sample PASW version 18, formerly SPSS, statistical software was used for compi lation and statistical analysis of data. Data were collected through the on line Qualtrics survey software program, downloaded into an Excel file and converted into PASW. Five hundred and sixty six responded to the request for participation of which 292 ( N = 292) completed the experiment appropriately. Of the remaining 274, some were not 18 years old, some did not agree to participate, others began but did not complete the experiment and others completed it without thought (e.g., choosing 4 for every resp onse). Overall response rate was 51.6%. As described in Table 4 1, 125 males and 167 females completed the experiment. Overall, men represented 43% and women 57% of total participants. Review of Table 4 2 demonstrates the results of one way ANOVA that f ound no significant differences in the perceptions of organizational transparency by gender F (1, 291) = .46, p > .05 and communicative transparency F (1, 291) = .27, p > .05, and no significant differences in the level of trust F (1, 291) = 1.65, p > .05 and behavioral intentions F (1, 291) = 1.61, p > .05 displayed towards organizations. The median age for participants across all experimental blocks was 59 years old, with the youngest participants at 19 and the oldest at 90 years old. Table 4 3 lists the

PAGE 88

88 me dian age, standard deviation and range of participants by experimental block and To analyze the potential effect for age, participant ages were grouped by decade, (i.e., 19 29, 30 39, 40 49, 50 59, 60 69, 70 79, and 80 90) and 1 way ANOVAs conducted to det ermine any potential significant differences relating to age on organizational transparency, communicative transparency, trust and behavioral intentions. Results, of the ANOVA presented in Table 4 4, indicated that age did not provide significant differe nces in perceptions of organizational transparency F (6, 245) = 1.345, p > .050, communicative transparency F (6, 245) = .972, p > .050, trust F (6, 245) = 1.127, p > .050, and behavioral intentions F (6, 245) = .848, p > .050. The frequency with which each e xperimental block was completed can be seen in Table 4 5. The number of completed experiments per block ranged from a low of 33 in Block 3 to a high of 40 in Block 4. Table 4 5 also includes the type of organization featured by block and the description o f organizational transparency and communicative transparency. Overall, the number of experimental blocks featuring charitable nonprofit organizations versus their for profit business counterparts was approximately equal, with 142 nonprofit and 150 for pro fit scenarios as seen in Table 4 6. Tables 4 7 and 4 8 describe the frequencies for the number of experimental blocks that featured a transparent or non transparent organization (OrgTrans), and the number of blocks that featured organizations that engaged in communicative transparency (ComTrans) and those that did not. These are also approximately equal with 148 transparent organizations versus 144 non transparent organizations (Table 4 7) and 143 organizations that utilized communicative transparency ver sus 149 that did not (Table 4 8).

PAGE 89

89 Descriptive Statistics Scale Reliability Analysis Scale reliability tests were examined for organizational transparency, communicative transparency, trust, and behavioral intentions. Reliability for all scales was high, a nd consistent with prior studies (Rawlins, 2008; 2009) details of which are found in Tables 4 9 through 4 for scale reliability because this test reveals the extent to which items that measure the same f actor are correlated with each other. As Cortina (1993) explained: If a test has a large alpha, then it can be concluded that a large portion of the variance in the test is attributable to general and group factors. This is important information because it implies that there is very little item specific variance. (p. 103) The organizational transparency scale developed by Rawlins (2009) returned with alpha of .98. As described in Table 4 alpha, mean, and st andard deviation for each experimental block, scores ranged from a low of .92 in Block 7, the not transparent charitable nonprofit that did not use a transparent communicative response, to a high of .98 for Block 5, which represented a transparent charitab le nonprofit that did not use a transparent communicative response. The overall communicative transparency scale (Rawlins, 2009) described in Table 4 ranged from a high i n Block 2, transparent for profit organization that used transparent Block 7, which represented the not transparent charitable nonprofit that did not use a transparent comm unicative response.

PAGE 90

90 The trust scale proposed by Rawlins (2008) and the behavior intentions scale developed by the researcher for this study each returned overall reliability scores of 11 illustrates the trust scale scores and Table 4 12 illustrates the behavioral intentions scale scores. Since scores were high, there was no alpha level for either scale. According to Gliem and Gliem (2003), alphas of greater than .50 are acceptable and the closer to 1.0 the alpha, the higher the internal consistency of the scale; thus the reliability analysis of the scales for the study showed all scales used were highly reliable. Scale Items and Determina nts In addition to analysis of overall scale reliability, descriptive statistics of scale items were analyzed. Because this was an experimental study and as such intended to produce extremes, the mean scores overall for measurement of organizational trans parency, communicative transparency, trust, and behavioral intentions ranged from a low of 1.64 to a high of 5.14 on 7 point scales. Moreover, the means throughout the study do not achieve levels higher than 6.06 because the crisis situation used to creat e the extremes involved the death of two people and as such it would be unlikely for even the most transparent organizations and businesses to achieve high mean scores. Tables 4 13 through 4 16 list the scale means and standard deviation for each scale ite m by experimental block. As described in Chapter 3, each scale was measured on a 7 point scale. Organizational transparency was measured on a 7 point semantic scale a dditional indicators on individual points. The communicative transparency and trust

PAGE 91

91 scales ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree on a 7 point Likert scale, and the behavioral intentions scale ranged from highly disagree to highly agree on a 7 po int Likert scale. Organizational transparency As described within Table 4 13, which lists the scale item and overall mean scores and standard deviation by experimental block for organizational transparency, the highest overall mean score was found in Block 2 (M = 5.14, SD = 1.16), which represented the doubly transparent for profit business and the lowest mean score was found in Block 7 (M = 1.85, SD = .68), which represented the doubly non transparent charitable nonprofit organization. Among the determinan t factors for organizational transparency, illustrated in Table 4 4 and lowest in Blocks 5 8, among which Blocks 1 and 2 and Block 4: M = 3.21, SD = 1.54 vs. M = 3.23, SD = 1.48). Given that Blocks 1 4 received the communicative transparency treatment and Blocks 5 8 received the non attributable to the manipulation for this construct. received highest least highly regarded in these groups. Within the mixed transparency groups (Blocks 3 hest scores whereas

PAGE 92

92 non I tem means for Blocks 1 and 2, which represented the transparent organizations that used communicative transparency response, ranged from (M = 4.40, SD = 1.42) to (M = 5.86, SD = 1.40). This indicated that participants somewhat agreed that the organization demonstrated organizational transparency. Blocks 3 and 4, which represented non transparent organizations that used transparent communicative responses, ranged from (M = 1.64, SD = .69) to (M = 4.12, SD = 1.88) with the majority of response means in the 3 .00s (somewhat disagree), indicating that participants generally perceived these organizations as not displaying the qualities of organizational transparency. Similarly, within Blocks 5 and 6, which represented the transparent organizations that did not use a transparent communicative response, scale item means ranged from (M = 2.72, SD = 1.17) to (M = 4.49, SD = 1.52) with the majority of responses indicating that respondents disagreed or somewhat disagreed that the organization in question was transpare nt. As expected, the item mean scores in Blocks 7 and 8, which represented the non transparent organizations that did not communicate transparently, were the lowest among all blocks, ranging from (M = 1.50, SD = .75) to (M = 3.47, SD = 1.52) with the majo rity of mean scores indicating that respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that the organizations in question were transparent. In summation, participant perception of organizational transparency in the doubly non transparent organizations was more strongly negative than for those with mixed levels of transparency or those that were doubly transparent. Conversely, viewed from

PAGE 93

93 the positive, participant perception of organizational transparency in the doubly transparent organizations was more strongly positive than for those with mixed levels of transparency or for those that were doubly non transparent. Communicative transparency As described within Tables 4 14 and 4 15, which list the scale item and overall mean scores and standard deviation by exper imental block for communicative transparency, the highest overall mean score was again found in Block 2 (M = 4.70, SD = .86), which represented the doubly transparent for profit business and the lowest mean score was found in Block 7 (M = 2.18, SD = .72), which represented the doubly non transparent charitable nonprofit organization. Among the determinant factors for communicative transparency, illustrated in Tables 4 14 and 4 3 and lowest in Blocks 5 and 6. score in Block 5. Given that Blocks 1 3 represent blocks that received doubly transparent or mixed experimental treatments and that Blocks 5, 7 and 8 represent those that received the doubly non transparent or mixed treatment, it is not surprising that the fir highest item scor es for the blocks that received the communicative transparency experimental treatment (Blocks 1 Among the blocks that received the non transparent communication treatment,

PAGE 94

94 forthcoming with Table 4 14 provides details of the scale item mean scores for communicative transparency, organized by question for Blocks 1 4 wherein Blo cks 1 and 2, which represented the transparent organizations that used communicative transparency response, achieved means ranging from (M = 4.03, SD = 1.34) to (M = 5.63, SD = 1.26), which indicated participants somewhat agreed that the organization demon strated communicative transparency Blocks 3 and 4, which represented non transparent organizations that used transparent communicative responses, ranged from (M = 2.70, SD = 1.16) to (4.55, SD = 1.79) with the majority of response means in the 3.00s, indi cating that participants perceived these organizations as somewhat lacking the qualities of communicative transparency. Table 4 15, which provides details of the scale item means and standard deviation for communicative transparency in Blocks 5 8, indica tes the mean scores for Blocks 5 and 6, which represented the transparent organizations that did not use a transparent communicative response, ranged from (M = 2.26, SD = 1.33) to (M = 5.10, SD = 1.33). = 4.26, SD = 1.52) in Block 5 and (M = 5.10, SD = 1.33) in Block 6, the majority of means fell into the 2.00s and 3.00s demonstrating that respondents perceived these organizations as lacking in the qualities of commun icative transparency.

PAGE 95

95 As expected, the item mean scores in Blocks 7 and 8, which represented the non transparent organizations that did not communicate transparently, ranged from (M = 1.62, SD = .92) to (M = 6.06, SD = 1.13). Mimicking the results for B locks 5 and 6, different results than the rest of the questions in the scale, possibly because of the ) in Block 7 and (M = 5.69, SD = 1.17) in Block 8. In summation, participant perception of communicative transparency in the doubly non transparent organizations was more strongly negative than for those with mixed levels of transparency or those that we re doubly transparent. In other words, participant perception of communicative transparency was more strongly positive for organizations exhibiting both organizational and communicative transparency than for the mixed or doubly non transparent organizatio ns. Moreover, as expected through manipulation, among the mixed transparency blocks, those that received the communicative transparency treatment (Blocks 3 and 4) perceived higher levels of communicative transparency than those that received the non trans parency communication treatment (Blocks 5 and 6). Trust As described in Tables 4 16 and 4 17, which list the scale item and overall mean scores and standard deviation by experimental block for trust, the highest overall mean score was again found in Block 2 (M = 4.73, SD = 1.17), which represented the doubly transparent for profit business and the lowest mean score was found in Block 7 (M = 1.89, SD = .80), which represented the doubly non transparent charitable nonprofit organization.

PAGE 96

96 Among the determinant factors for trust, illustrated in Tables 4 16 and 4 17, high of (M = 4.51, SD = 1 .25) for Block 1 and a low of (M = 1.71, SD = .79) for Block 7. Scale means and standard deviation for trust for Blocks 1 4 as described in Table 4 16 indicate that participants who received the most transparent organizational scenarios in Blocks 1 and 2 somewhat agreed that they had trust in the organization. Mean scores for Blocks 1 and 2 ranged from (M = 3.23, SD = 1.29) to (M = 5.43, SD = 1.22). Mean scores for two of the mixed transparency blocks (Blocks 3 and 4), which represented non transparen t organizations that used transparent communicative responses, ranged from (M = 2.36, SD = 1.19) to (M = 4.06, SD = 1.50), indicating that participants did not place a great deal of trust in these organizations. Similarly, the remaining 2 mixed transpare ncy blocks (Blocks 5 and 6), details for which are found in Table 4 17, had means that ranged from (M = 2.23, SD = 1.16) to (M = 4.59, SD = 1.48) with the majority of mean scores falling into the 2:00s and 3.00s, indicating that participants did not place much trust in the organization. As expected, the item mean scores in Blocks 7 and 8, which represented the non transparent organizations that did not communicate transparently, ranged from (M = 1.56, SD = .86) to (M = 3.22, SD = 1.51) demonstrating a lack of trust in the organizations in question. It should be noted that the lowest mean score for each block came from the same erring to Tables 4 16 and 4 17, the majority of lowest

PAGE 97

97 highest mean scores, the f Overall results for trust indicated that organizations t hat were perceived by participants as displaying both organizational and communicative transparency achieved higher levels of trust than the mixed transparency or doubly non transparent organizations. Behavioral intentions As described in Table 4 18, which list the scale item and overall mean scores and standard deviation by experimental block for positive behavioral intentions, the highest overall mean score was found in Block 1 (M = 4.49, SD = 1.46), which represented the doubly transparent charitable non profit organization and the lowest mean score was found in Block 7 (M = 1.64, SD = .89), which represented the doubly non transparent charitable nonprofit organization. Following the pattern set by the previous scale discussions, the doubly transparent blo cks (Blocks 1 and 2) displayed the highest mean scores, indicating they were somewhat inclined to speak or act positively with regard to the organization. Respondents to Blocks 3 to 6, which represented the mixed transparency groups, indicated they were less likely to display positive behavioral or word of mouth intentions whereas the doubly transparent blocks (Blocks 7 and 8) had across the board scores in the 1.00s, indicating they were highly unlikely to display positive behavioral or word of mouth int entions.

PAGE 98

98 Significance of Scale Item Effects on Trust Two way ANOVA was conducted to analyze the effect organizational transparency and communicative transparency scale items had on trust and behavioral intentions. Results of the test described in Table 4 19 identified main effects for six organizational transparency items on trust. Deceptiveness or truthfulness [ F (6, 291) = 3.94, p < .05, 2 = .29], insincerity or sincerity [ F (6, 292) = 4.20, p < 2 = .31], insensitivity or sensitivity [ F( 6, 292) = 2.78, p < 2 = .23], flexibility or inflexibility [ F (6, 292) = 2.26, p < 2 = .19], competence or incompetence [ F (6, 292) = 3.48, p < 2 = .27] as well as uncaring or caring [ F (6, 292) = 2.58, p < 2 = .21] reflected main effects for organizational transparency on the dependent variable, trust. Table 4 20 lists the five scale items of communicative transparency that produced the F (6, 292) = 2.67, p < 2 = .22] and F (2, 292) = 3.35, p < 2 = .26]. rmation I F (6, 292) = 3.38, p < 2 F (6, 292) = 3.43, p < 2 = .27]. Significance of Scale Item Effects on Behavioral Intentions As shown in Table 4 21, results of the 2 way ANOVA testing the effect of organizational transparency on behavioral intentions showed main effects for six items. Within the results for the organizational transparency scale, there was just one duplication from the results noted above for tr ust. The concept of caring or uncaring produced main effects for both trust and behavioral intentions with the latter results as F (6,292) = 2.70, p < 2 = .22. Other items included willingness or unwillingness to

PAGE 99

99 listen [ F (6, 292) = 3.26, p < 2 = .26], credibility [ F (6, 292) = 3.12, p < 2 = .25], reliability [ F( 6, 292) = 2.98, p < 2 = .24] and being open or closed [ F (6, 292) = 3.24, p < 2 = .25]. Table 4 22 describes the significance test for the effect of communicative tran sparency scale items. Results indicated that two items from communicative transparency produced main effects on both trust and on behavioral intentions. Scores for the effect on trust as indicated above, whereas scores for behavioral intentions for F (6, 292) = 3.64, p < 2 F (6, 292) = 2.67, p < 2 = .22]. Of the three additional items from th e communicative transparency scale that produced main effects for behavioral intentions F (6, 292) = 1.99, p < 2 = .17] and F( 6, 292) = 3.06, p < .05, 2 = .24]. Exploratory Factor Analysis Though the results of the scales of measurement used in this study were determined through experimental method rather than through survey method, the researcher believed it was pertinent to conduct exploratory factor analysis on the scales because they had not been tested in an external stakeholder situation. Placing items from the organizational transparency and communicative transparency scales into one exploratory analysis resulted in extraction of three components. Table 4 23 displays the final compon ent extractions and Table 4 24 displays the Eigenvalues and variance of the extracted components.

PAGE 100

100 Viewing the results, the majority of the 25 communicative transparency items factored together into one component, with the exception of five items, which fa ctored together into their own component. These five items were as follows: Provides information that is relevant to people like me. Provides information to people like me in language that is clear. Often leaves out important details in the information it provides to people like me. Involves people like me to help identify the information I need. Provides information that is complete. Five items from the communicative transparency scale were also confounded, loading without adequate strength onto any one component. These items related to information Items for organizational transparency factored into one component with five confounded items loading without adequate strength onto any component. These five confounded items referred to the semantic differential pairings of arroga nt/humble, flexible/inflexible, impersonal/personal, open/closed, and willingness or unwillingness to listen. When items for the trust scale (Rawlins, 2008) and behavioral intentions scales were grouped together for exploratory factor analysis, all items f actored into one component. Tables 4 25 and 4 26 provide the component extraction information and strength of loading. Individually, trust factored into one component as described in

PAGE 101

101 Tables 4 27 and 4 28 and behavioral intentions factored into one compon ent as described in Tables 4 29 and 4 30. Check on Manipulation of Stimulli Table 4 31 presents the results of the one way ANOVAs used to check the effectiveness of each experimental manipulation (transparent/non transparent organization, transparent/non transparent communication) in each of the two organizational types (nonprofit and for profit). The first fictitious newspaper article presented to participants, which was designed to provide stimuli for organizational transparency or a lack of organization al transparency revealed significant difference of means within the nonprofit groups between those who received the transparent organization article and those that received the non transparent organization article (M = 4.30, SD = 1.47 vs. M = 2.63, SD = 1. 33, p < .05). Significant differences were also found within the for profit groups (M = 3.92, SD = 1.06 vs. M = 2.74, SD = 1.02, p < .05). The high level of significance indicates that the manipulation for organizational transparency was successful. Arti cle two, which was written to provide stimuli for communicative transparency revealed significant differences of means within both the nonprofit (M = 3.92, SD = 1.06 vs. M = 2.74, SD = 1.02 p < .00) and for profit groups (M = 3.40, SD = 1.19 vs. M = 2.56, SD = .94, p < .05). Again, the level of differences between groups indicates the successful manipulation of stimuli, in this case communicative transparency. Manipulation for type of organization was checked by a qualitative sentence provided by particip ants following articles one and two within the experiment. Review of the descriptive sentences indicates that participants understood the type of organization for which they were providing analysis. For example, comments from Block 1, the

PAGE 102

102 doubly transpar Block 2, which represented the doubly transparent for profit business included comments such however, some respondents in this block identified the organization as a nonprofit, profit hydro e status was implied though it was not mentioned in either article. Comments from Block 3, which represented a non transparent nonprofit that used communicative transparency, provided more comments referring to the perceived profit h represented the transparent nonprofit organization that did not use communicative transparency had many comments relating to the type of organization and just one that referred to the ock 7, which represented the doubly non transparent nonprofit group, had many strong comments or their

PAGE 103

103 Within the blocks representing for profit business, Block 4, the non tra nsparent within this block, there were participants who confused the business for a non profit Block 6, comments referred to both the business and its perceived transparency as in enginee ring firm which is supposed to provide state of the Block 8, which represented the doubly non transparent business, were mixed between Overall, as indicated in Table 4 31, tests of the three experimental manipulations creat ed for this study were successful. Significant differences in perceptions of organizational transparency were found between those that received the transparent organization manipulation and those that received the non transparent organization manipulation. Significant differences in perceptions of communicative transparency were also found between those that received the communicative transparency manipulation and those that received the non transparent communication manipulation. Moreover, these differenc es were found to be significant within each type of organization (charitable nonprofit or for profit business). Hypotheses Testing This study incorporated three broad hypotheses linking the constructs of transparency, trust and behavioral intentions in a comparative measure between

PAGE 104

104 charitable nonprofit organizations and for profit businesses. The null hypothesis of no interaction effect applies to all hypotheses. Following are listed the alternative hypotheses: Hypothesis 1: Within charitable nonprofit organizations there is an interaction between reputation for organizational transparency and communicative form of response on trust and behavioral intentions, such that transparent organizations that communicate transparently have greater trust and behavi oral intentions in crisis situations than: H1a: Non transparent organizations that do not communicate transparently; H1b: Transparent organizations that do not communicate transparently; H1c: Non transparent organizations that communicative transparently. Hypothesis 2: Within for profit businesses there is an interaction between reputation for organizational transparency and communicative form of response on trust and behavioral intentions, such that transparent businesses that communicate transparently hav e greater trust and behavioral intentions in crisis situations than: H2a: Non transparent businesses that do not communicate transparently; H2b: Transparent businesses that do not communicate transparently; H2c: Non transparent businesses that communicativ e transparently. Hypothesis 3: There is an interaction among organization type, reputation for organizational transparency and communicative form of response on trust and behavioral intentions in crisis situations. Test of Hypothesis 1 Two way ANOVAs were used to determine the significance of organizational

PAGE 105

105 trust and second on the dependent variable behavioral intentions. Summated scores for organizational transparency and communicative transparency were used and, because Hypothesis 1 refers only to charitable nonprofit organizations, only experimental cases that featured the appropriate group were selected for use in the analysis. Trust Overall, doubly transparent organizations achieved more than twice as much trust as their doubly non transparent counterparts. As expected, the highest mean scores on trust were achieved for the doubly transparent organizations (transparent charitable nonprofit organizations that us ed a transparent form of crisis response) and lowest for the doubly non transparent organizations (non transparent charitable nonprofits that did not utilize a transparent form of crisis response), the difference in means for which were (M = 4.59, SD = 1.0 9 vs. M = 1.89, SD = .80). Higher mean scores for trust were also achieved for the doubly transparent charitable nonprofit organizations than those for transparent organizations that did not utilize a transparent form of response (M = 4.59, SD = 1.09, vs M = 3.50, SD = 1.34). Finally, transparent organizations that used a transparent response form had higher mean scores than non transparent organizations who communicated transparently (M = 4.59, SD = 1.09 vs. M = 3.22, SD = 1.30). Table 4 32 provides t he descriptive statistics for the test, which as described above, provide partial support for Hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 1c. Results of the two way ANOVA shown in Table 4 33 indicate there was not a significant effect on trust through interaction of organizati onal transparency and communicative transparency, F( 2 = .00. There were, however, significant main effects for each of these variables. Both the effect from organizational transparency [ F (1, 141) = 58.29, p < 2 = .30] and the effect from communicative

PAGE 106

106 transparency [ F (1, 141) = 38.81, p < 2 = .22] had significance levels of less than .05. According to Mertler and Vannata (2010), the strength of the effect described by 2 ) for each of the main effects wa s minimal, only those values over .50 are considered substantial. Overall, the model demonstrated significant differences in levels of trust, depending on perceptions of organizational transparency or communicative transparency, [ F (3, 141) = 32.10, p < .00 2 = .41] Behavioral intentions Hypothesis 1a argued that transparent charitable nonprofit organizations that used a transparent form of crisis response would have greater trust and behavioral intentions than those without a reputation for organizatio nal transparency that did not utilize a transparent form of crisis response. As described above, the null hypothesis of no interaction effect on trust was rejected; in the test for behavioral intentions, it also was rejected (M = 4.52, SD = 1.45 vs. M = 1 .64, SD = .89). Thus Hypothesis 1a is supported overall. As reported above, the doubly transparent organizations achieved more than twice the level of positive behavioral intentions that the doubly non transparent organizations. Within the mixed transp arency groups, the mean scores for behavioral intentions for charitable nonprofit organizations with a reputation for organizational transparency that used a transparent form of crisis response, as opposed to transparent organizations that did not utilize a transparent form of response, were also higher, (M = 4.52, SD = 1.45 vs. M = 3.05, SD = 1.68), supporting Hypothesis 1b. Finally, Hypothesis 1c, which contended that levels of trust and behavioral intentions would be greater in transparent organizations that used transparent response than non transparent organizations that

PAGE 107

107 communicated transparently was supported with (M = 4.52, SD = 1.42 vs. M = 2.89, SD = 1.45). Table 4 34 provides the descriptive statistics for the test. Though the null hypotheses fo r Hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 1c were rejected, again, there was no interaction effect for organizational transparency and communicative transparency F (1, 141) = .21, p 2 = .00; however, there were significant main effects for each of the variables. Le vels of behavioral intentions varied significantly depending on perceptions of organizational transparency, [ F( 1, 141) = 41.17, p < .00, 2 = .23] and also of communicative transparency [ F (1,141) = 32.86, p < 2 = .19]. As indicated in Table 4 35, th e overall model showed the differences in extent of behavioral intentions, F (3, 141) = 24.53, p < 2 = .35, depending on perceptions of either organizational transparency or communicative transparency. An analysis of eta 2 ) indicates the l ow levels for strength of effect for each main effect. Test of Hypothesis 2 The test for Hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c followed the same pattern as those for Hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 1c. Two way ANOVAs were executed to determine the significance of organization first on the dependent variable trust and second on the dependent variable behavioral intentions. Summated scores for organizational transparency and communicative transparency were used and, beca use Hypotheses 2 refer only to for profit businesses, only experimental cases that featured the appropriate group were selected for use in the analysis. Trust Overall, doubly transparent businesses achieved more than twice as much trust as their doubly non transparent counterparts. As expected, the highest mean scores were

PAGE 108

108 achieved for the doubly transparent businesses (transparent for profit businesses who used a transparent form of crisis response) and lowest for the doubly non transparent businesses (non transparent for profit businesses who did not utilize a transparent form of crisis response), the difference in means for which were (M = 4.68, SD = 1.16 vs. M = 2.14, SD = .98). Higher mean scores for trust were also achieved for the doubly transpa rent for profit businesses than transparent businesses that did not utilize a transparent form of response (M = 4.68, SD = 1.16 vs. M = 2.93, SD = 1.11). Finally, transparent businesses that used transparent response form had higher mean scores than non t ransparent businesses who communicated transparently (M = 4.68, SD = 1.16 vs. M = 3.15, SD = 1.47). Table 4 36 provides the descriptive statistics for the test, which as described above, provide partial support for Hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c. Results of th e two way ANOVA shown in Table 4 37 indicate that there was not a significant effect on trust through interaction of organizational transparency and 2 = .02. There were, however, significant main eff ects for each of these variables. Both the effect from organizational transparency [ F (1, 149) = 35.08, p 2 = .19] and the effect from communicative transparency [ F (1, 149) = 49.67, p < 2 = .25] resulted in significance levels of less than .0 5. Overall, the model demonstrated significant differences in levels of trust, depending on perceptions of organizational transparency or communicative transparency, F (3, 149) = 27.69, p < 2 = .36. Yet according to Mertler and Vannatta (2010), these 2 ) indicate less than substantial strength of effect for each main effect and the overall model.

PAGE 109

109 Behavioral intentions Hypothesis 2a argued that transparent for profit businesses that used a transparent form of crisis response would have greater trust and behavioral intentions than those without a reputation for organizational transparency that did not utilize a transparent form of crisis response. As described above, the null hypothesis of no interaction effect on trust was rejecte d and was also rejected in the test for behavioral intentions (M = 4.25, SD = 1.54 vs. M = 1.78, SD = 1.11); thus Hypothesis 2a is supported overall. Table 4 behavioral intentio ns toward for profit businesses. As reported above, the doubly transparent businesses achieved more than twice the level of positive behavioral intentions that the doubly non transparent businesses. Mean scores for positive behavioral intentions towards for profit businesses with a reputation for organizational transparency and that used a transparent form of crisis response, were higher than those of transparent businesses that did not utilize a transparent form of response, (M = 4.25, SD = 1.54 vs. M = 2.62, SD = 1.44), indicating support for Hypothesis 2b. Finally, Hypothesis 2c, which contended that levels of trust and behavioral intentions would be greater in transparent businesses that used transparent response than non transparent businesses that c ommunicated transparently was also supported (M = 4.25, SD = 1.54 vs. M = 2.57, SD = 1.77). Though the null hypotheses for Hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c were rejected overall, again, there was no interaction effect for organizational transparency and communi cative transparency F (1, 149) = 3.02, p 2 = 00; however, there were significant main effects for each of the variables. Levels of behavioral intentions varied

PAGE 110

110 significantly depending on perceptions of organizational transparency [ F( 1, 149) = 26.51 p 2 = .15] and also for communicative transparency [ F (1,149) = 24.49, p < 2 = .14]. As indicated in Table 4 39, the overall model describes the differences in extent of behavioral intentions, depending on perceptions of either organizational transparency or communicative transparency F (3, 149) = 16.90, p < 2 = .26. Though 2 ) values suggest limited strength of effect for organizational transparency, communicative transparency and for the overall model. Test of Hypothesis 3 Hypothesis 3 argued that there would be an interaction among organization t ype, reputation for organizational transparency and form of communicative response on trust and behavioral intentions in crisis situations. Using two way ANOVA, the independent variables for type of organization (nonprofit vs. for profit), organizational transparency (OrgTrans vs. Not OrgTrans) and communicative transparency (ComTrans vs. Not ComTrans) were examined first against the dependent variable trust (Trust_TOTAL) and secondly, against the dependent variable behavioral intentions (BHI_TOTAL). Trus t Descriptive statistics for this test show that the means for doubly transparent charitable nonprofit organizations and for profit businesses were more than twice as high as the means for the doubly non transparent charitable nonprofit organizations (M = 4.59, SD = 1.09 vs. M = 1.89, SD = .80) and for profit businesses (M = 4.68, SD = 1.16 vs. M = 2.14, SD = .98). Further, transparent for profit businesses that communicated transparently were the highest among all eight blocks, including the doubly trans parent charitable nonprofit organizations (M = 4.68, SD = 1.16 vs. M = 4.59, SD = 1.09). Moreover, for profit

PAGE 111

111 businesses also had higher means than the charitable nonprofits in the doubly non transparent groups (M = 2.14, SD = .98 vs. M = 1.89, SD = .80). Within the mixed transparency groups (Blocks 3 6), charitable nonprofit organizations had the higher mean scores for trust. Table 4 40 illustrates the mean and standard deviation for all groups. Results of the two way ANOVA shown in Table 4 41 indicat e that there was no difference in effect on trust as the result of interaction among the independent variables: organizational transparency, communicative transparency, and type of organization F (1, 291) = 3.17, p 2 = .01. The model also demonstra tes lack of significant differences in effect on trust for both the organizational transparency and type of organization interaction F (1, 291) = 1.37, p 2 = .00] and for the communicative transparency and type of organization interaction [ F (1, 291) = .38, p 2 = .00]. Interaction among organizational transparency and communicative transparency also lacked significance in effect on trust [ F (1, 291) = .82, p 2 = .00] and for the independent variable regarding type of organization [ F (1 291) = .29, p 2 = .00]. Within the remaining two independent variables, significant main effects were found for organizational transparency [ F (1, 291) = 91.61, p < 2 = .24] and communicative transparency [ F (1, 291) = 88.02, p 2 = 2 )indicates the strength of the effect is only moderate. Figure 4 1 illustrates the effect of organizational transparency and type of organization on trust and depicts a disordinal interaction. As Mertler and Vannatta (2010) exp

PAGE 112

112 results of the two way ANOVA listed in Table 4 41 indicate that the interaction of organi zational transparency and type of organization did not produce significant differences in the extent of trust placed on organizations [ F (1, 291) = 1.37, p 2 = .00]. Though, as described above, the for profit businesses had higher means for trust in the doubly transparent groups, the histogram in Figure 4.2 illustrates that the nonprofit groups have higher levels of trust based on the totals for the organizational transparency (OrgTrans) condition as listed in Table 4 40, [M = 4.02, SD = 1.34, vs. M = 3.74, SD = 1.43], and lower levels of trust for the overall non transparent condition [M = 2.54, SD = 1.26, vs. M = 2.66, SD = 1.35]. A graphical representation of the differences in effect of communicative transparency (ComTrans) and type of organizat ion on trust can be found in Figure 4 3, which demonstrates the direction and strength for both charitable nonprofit organizations and for profit businesses. The similarity in means for the doubly transparent groups as described above, reveal themselves a s nearly overlapping lines at the top end of the graph and indicate possible, though non significant interaction F (1, 291) = 1.37, p 2 = .01. Moreover, whereas the charitable nonprofit organizations and for profit businesses achieve approximately the same levels of trust for communicating transparently, the for profit businesses lose more trust when they do not communicate transparently. The histogram depicted in Figure 4 4 illustrates the higher levels of trust in charitable nonprofit organization s for both the overall transparent communicative transparency condition (nonprofit: M = 3.93, SD = 1.37 vs. for profit: M = 3.85, SD =

PAGE 113

113 1.54) and for the overall non transparent communicative transparency condition (nonprofit: M = 2.75, SD = 1.38, vs. for p rofit: M = 2.54, SD = 1.12). Behavioral intentions Descriptive statistics for this test show that the means for doubly transparent charitable nonprofit organizations and for profit businesses were more than twice as high as the means for the doubly non tra nsparent charitable nonprofit organizations (M = 4.52, SD = 1.45 vs. M = 1.64, SD = .89) and for profit businesses (M = 4.25, SD = 1.54 vs. M = 1.78, SD = 1.11). Further descriptive statistics for this test, depicted in Table 4 42, show that transparent ch aritable nonprofit organizations that communicated transparently had the most positive effect on behavioral intentions among all eight blocks, with the highest overall mean (M = 4.52, SD = 1.45); however, within Block 8, the doubly non transparent groups, the for profit business had the higher means in that pair (M = 1.78, SD = 1.11 vs. M = 1.64, SD = .89). Moreover, results of the two way ANOVA show that there was no difference in effect on behavioral intentions as the result of interaction among the inde pendent variables: organizational transparency, communicative transparency, and type of organization, F (1, 291) = .86, p 2 = .00. The model also demonstrates lack of significant differences in effect on behavioral intentions for both the organiza tional transparency and type of organization interaction F (1, 291) = .61, p 2 = .00] and for the communicative transparency and type of organization interaction [ F (1, 291) = .20, p 2 = .00]. Interaction among organizational transparency a nd communicative transparency also lacked significance in effect on behavioral intentions [ F (1, 291) = 2.43, p 2 = .00] and for the independent variable regarding type of organization [ F (1, 291) = 1.69, p 2 = .00].

PAGE 114

114 Within the remaining two independent variables, significant main effects were found for organizational transparency [ F (1, 291) = 66.46, p < 2 = .19] and communicative transparency [ F (1, 291) = 56.74, p 2 2 ) indicates the strength of the effect is quite low. Results of the test are listed in Table 4 43. Graphical representations of the differences in effect of organizational transparency (OrgTrans) and type of organization on behavioral intentions and for the effect of communicative transparency and type of organization on behavioral intentions can be fou nd in Figures 4 5 and 4 7. Similarity in strength and direction of lines in both graphs indicate lack of interaction among the variables described. Histogram representation of the total mean scores for the transparent conditions for each of the organiza tional transparency and communicative transparency conditions versus the non transparent conditions can be found in Figures 4 6 and 4 8. Figure 4 6 depicts the higher overall levels of behavioral intentions relating to organizational transparency in the d oubly transparent and doubly non transparent charitable non profit group conditions. Figure 4 8 depicts the higher overall levels of behavioral intentions in both the doubly transparent and doubly non transparent charitable non profit group conditions for communicative transparency. Hypothesis 3 argued that there would be an interaction among organization type, reputation for organizational transparency and communicative form of response on trust and behavioral intentions in crisis situations. Results of the two way ANOVA indicate failure to reject the null hypothesis; therefore, Hypothesis 3 is not supported, though main effects for two of the three independent variables were obtained.

PAGE 115

115 Models of Transparency Measurement Following from the results of hypot hesis 3, and for the purposes of model building charitable nonprofit organizations and for profit businesses. Figures 2 3 and 2 4 described in Chapter 2, suggested p rocess models for transparent organizations that used either a transparent form of response following a crisis, or did not use a transparent form of response following a crisis. No schema were supplied for non transparent organizations; however, results o f hypotheses testing demonstrate the differences in levels of trust and behavioral intentions depending on both organizational transparency and transparent or non transparent form of response. Figure 4 9 illustrates the differences in mean levels of trust and positive behavioral intentions for transparent organizations that either communicated transparently or did not communicate transparently. Figure 4 10 demonstrates the differences in mean levels of trust and positive behavioral intentions for non tran sparent organizations that communicated transparently or did not communicate transparently. From these models, the differences between the doubly transparent organizations found in Figure 4 9 and the doubly non transparent organizations found in Figure 4 10 become apparent as doubly transparent organizations achieve relatively high levels of trust and positive behavioral intentions whereas the doubly non transparent organizations achieve very low levels of trust and demonstrate lack of positive behavioral intentions. The mixed transparency groupings achieve mid range levels of trust and positive behavioral intentions.

PAGE 116

116 Table 4 1. Frequency of gender by experimental block Type Org Male Female Block Total Block 1 NPO 22 14 36 Block 2 FPB 12 22 34 Block 3 NPO 16 17 33 Block 4 FPB 20 20 40 Block 5 NPO 15 24 39 Block 6 FPB 14 25 39 Block 7 NPO 16 18 34 Block 8 FPB 10 27 37 Total 125 167 292 Table 4 2. Results of 1 way ANOVA for gender Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Organizational Transparency 1.212 (1, 291) 1.212 .463 .50 Communicative Transparency .413 (1, 291) .413 .270 .60 Trust 3.646 (1, 291) 3.646 1.646 .20 Behavioral Intentions 4.768 (1, 291) 4.768 1.611 .21

PAGE 117

117 Table 4 3. Mean age and range by experimental block Type Org N Mean SD Minimum Maximum Block 1 NPO 31 61.97 11.98 30 83 Block 2 FPB 32 59.31 12.74 29 86 Block 3 NPO 30 59.03 12.02 28 79 Block 4 FPB 36 60.33 12.41 19 79 Block 5 NPO 30 59.00 12.85 27 80 Block 6 FPB 31 56.87 12.65 30 80 Block 7 NPO 25 58.76 12.48 32 90 Block 8 FPB 31 55.81 12.67 32 82 Total 246 58.92 12.43 19 90 Note: Not all participants provided information on age. Table 4 4. Results of 1 way ANOVA for age Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Organizational Transparency 21.164 (6, 245) 3.527 1.345 .24 Communicative Transparency 9.001 (6, 245) 1.500 .972 .45 Trust 15.045 (6, 245) 2.508 1.127 .35 Behavioral Intentions 14.935 (6, 245) 2.489 .848 .53

PAGE 118

118 Table 4 5. Experimental block frequencies Type Org Block Description Frequency % Valid % Cumulative % Block 1 NPO OrgTrans + ComTrans 36 12.4 12.4 12.4 Block 2 FPB OrgTrans + ComTrans 34 11.6 11.7 24.1 Block 3 NPO Not TransOrg + ComTrans 33 11.3 11.3 35.3 Block 4 FPB Not TransOrg + ComTrans 40 13.7 13.7 49.0 Block 5 NPO OrgTrans + Not ComTrans 39 13.3 13.4 62.3 Block 6 FPB OrgTrans + Not ComTrans 39 13.3 13.4 75.7 Block 7 NPO Not TransOrg + Not ComTrans 34 11.6 11.6 87.3 Block 8 FPB Not TransOrg + Not ComTrans 37 12.6 12.7 100.0 Total 292 100 100 Table 4 6. Type of organization frequencies Frequency % Valid % Cumulative % Nonprofit 142 48.6 48.6 48.6 For Profit 150 51.4 51.4 100.0 Total 292 100.0 100.0 Table 4 7. Organizational transparency frequencies Frequency % Valid % Cumulative % Transparent 148 50.5 50.7 50.7 Not Transparent 144 49.1 49.3 100.0 Total 292 100.0 100.0 Table 4 8. Communicative transparency frequencies Frequency % Valid % Cumulative % Communicative Transparency 143 48.8 49.0 49.0 Not Transparent Communication 149 50.9 51.0 51.0 Total 292 100.0 100.0

PAGE 119

119 Table 4 9. Organizational transparency scale reliability by experimental block Type Org Block Description N Mean SD Alpha ( All Blocks 292 51.5 24.3 .98 Block 1 NPO OrgTrans + ComTrans 36 74.5 16.2 .96 Block 2 FPB OrgTrans + ComTrans 34 77.0 17.3 .96 Block 3 NPO Not OrgTrans + ComTrans 33 51.4 20.5 .97 Block 4 FPB Not OrgTrans + ComTrans 40 48.5 22.3 .98 Block 5 NPO OrgTrans + Not ComTrans 39 55.0 22.3 .98 Block 6 FPB OrgTrans + Not ComTrans 39 45.3 17.4 .97 Block 7 NPO Not OrgTrans + Not ComTrans 34 27.7 10.2 .92 Block 8 FPB Not OrgTrans + Not ComTrans 36 34.0 17.5 .96 Number of scale items = 15 Table 4 10. Communicative transparency scale reliability by experimental block Type Org Block Description N Mean SD Alpha ( All Blocks 292 85.4 32.5 .96 Block 1 NPO OrgTrans + ComTrans 36 113.8 23.6 .96 Block 2 FPB OrgTrans + ComTrans 34 122.3 22.6 .96 Block 3 NPO Not OrgTrans + ComTrans 33 89.2 26.6 .96 Block 4 FPB Not OrgTrans + ComTrans 40 87.1 28.2 .95 Block 5 NPO OrgTrans + Not ComTrans 39 84.1 26.5 .95 Block 6 FPB OrgTrans + Not ComTrans 39 70.1 22.2 .94 Block 7 NPO Not OrgTrans + Not ComTrans 34 56.4 19.1 .89 Block 8 FPB Not OrgTrans + Not ComTrans 36 62.9 27.2 .95 Number of scale items = 25

PAGE 120

120 Table 4 11. Trust scale reliability by experimental block Type Org Block Description N Mean SD Alpha ( All Blocks 292 42.3 19.4 .97 Block 1 NPO OrgTrans + ComTrans 36 59.1 13.9 .94 Block 2 FPB OrgTrans + ComTrans 34 61.4 15.2 .96 Block 3 NPO Not OrgTrans + ComTrans 33 41.9 16.9 .97 Block 4 FPB Not OrgTrans + ComTrans 40 40.9 19.2 .97 Block 5 NPO OrgTrans + Not ComTrans 39 45.4 17.4 .96 Block 6 FPB OrgTrans + Not ComTrans 39 38.0 14.4 .95 Block 7 NPO Not OrgTrans + Not ComTrans 34 24.5 10.4 .93 Block 8 FPB Not OrgTrans + Not ComTrans 36 28.1 12.8 .92 Number of scale items = 13 Table 4 12. Behavioral intentions scale reliability by experimental block Type Org Block Description N Mean SD Alpha ( All Blocks 292 8.71 5.16 .97 Block 1 NPO OrgTrans + ComTrans 36 13.5 4.38 .97 Block 2 FPB OrgTrans + ComTrans 34 12.9 4.60 .97 Block 3 NPO Not OrgTrans + ComTrans 33 8.67 4.34 .95 Block 4 FPB Not OrgTrans + ComTrans 40 7.70 5.31 .97 Block 5 NPO OrgTrans + Not ComTrans 39 9.15 5.05 .95 Block 6 FPB OrgTrans + Not ComTrans 39 7.85 4.33 .98 Block 7 NPO Not OrgTrans + Not ComTrans 34 4.91 2.66 .95 Block 8 FPB Not OrgTrans + Not ComTrans 36 5.33 3.39 .99 Number of scale items = 3

PAGE 121

121 Table 4 13. Organizational transparency determinants and scale item means by experimental block. Block 1 (N = 36) Block 2 (N = 34) Block 3 (N = 33) Block 4 (N = 40) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Integrity 4.67 1.22 4.76 1.38 3.25 1.41 3.23 1.48 Competent 4.74 1.52 4.71 1.74 3.00 1.54 3.13 1.74 Ethical 4.69 1.37 4.69 1.57 3.03 1.51 2.90 1.41 Reliable 4.40 1.42 4.49 1.72 2.85 1.52 3.02 1.83 Intelligent 4.83 1.36 5.23 1.06 4.12 1.56 3.88 1.74 Respect 5.27 1.05 5.40 1.19 3.70 1.50 3.26 1.53 Sincere 5.11 1.39 5.06 1.30 3.39 1.71 3.33 1.75 Willing to listen 5.71 1.10 5.86 1.40 4.12 1.88 3.47 1.87 Personal 5.14 1.27 5.35 1.37 3.58 1.82 2.77 1.49 Flexible 5.14 1.38 5.40 1.19 3.97 1.45 3.75 1.63 Caring 5.31 1.23 5.43 1.58 3.91 1.77 3.38 1.90 Humble 5.14 1.19 5.37 1.17 3.21 1.65 3.15 1.64 Openness 4.94 1.24 5.02 1.14 1.64 .69 2.05 1.22 Truthful 4.78 1.40 4.91 1.26 2.94 1.48 3.05 1.57 Sensitive 5.03 1.22 5.11 1.55 3.42 1.70 3.02 1.79 Open 5.17 1.38 5.57 1.15 3.70 1.53 3.45 1.74 Credible 4.89 1.28 4.83 1.58 2.97 1.53 3.15 1.75 Consistent 4.63 1.57 4.86 1.57 3.21 1.45 3.05 1.69 Overall 4.97 1.08 5.14 1.16 3.23 1.49 3.43 1.37

PAGE 122

122 Table 4 13. Continued Block 5 (N = 39) Block 6 (N = 39) Block 7 (N = 34) Block 8 (N = 36) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Integrity 3.83 1.48 3.40 1.23 2.11 .82 2.56 1.27 Competent 3.62 1.71 3.33 1.42 1.82 1.00 2.44 1.56 Ethical 3.77 1.63 3.03 1.33 1.85 .89 2.31 1.37 Reliable 3.44 1.77 3.00 1.38 1.74 .96 2.03 1.44 Intelligent 4.49 1.52 4.26 1.62 3.03 1.45 3.47 1.52 Respect 3.52 1.50 2.85 1.17 1.64 .69 2.05 1.22 Sensitive 3.31 1.72 2.72 1.43 1.50 .75 1.94 1.37 Willing to listen 3.44 1.85 2.85 1.42 1.59 .93 1.97 1.44 Personal 3.77 1.53 2.72 1.17 1.53 .71 2.06 1.31 Flexible 3.56 1.60 3.18 1.34 1.82 .87 2.25 1.42 Caring 3.64 1.78 2.82 1.41 1.79 1.04 1.94 1.41 Humble 3.38 1.55 2.79 1.20 1.59 .96 2.11 1.56 Openness 3.70 1.54 2.92 1.20 1.89 .75 2.34 1.21 Truthful 3.85 1.58 2.87 1.28 1.85 .82 2.28 1.32 Sincere 3.92 1.61 3.05 1.38 2.00 1.04 2.42 1.54 Open 3.38 1.63 2.72 1.28 1.62 .85 2.22 1.42 Credible 3.69 1.79 3.03 1.41 1.79 .98 2.17 1.38 Consistent 3.67 1.74 2.95 1.50 2.21 1.34 2.64 1.62 Overall 3.66 1.49 3.02 1.16 1.85 .68 2.28 1.18

PAGE 123

123 Table 4 14. Communicative transparency item means in experimental blocks 1 4 Block 1 (N = 36) Block 2 (N = 34) Block 3 (N = 33) Block 4 (N = 40) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Participation 4.60 1.21 5.11 1.05 3.35 1.35 3.27 1.65 Asks for feedback from people like me about the quality of its information. 4.49 1.38 5.23 1.24 3.55 1.82 2.88 1.81 Involves people like me to help identify the information I need. 4.49 1.29 5.03 1.25 3.36 1.45 3.33 1.75 Provides detailed information to people like me. 4.43 1.36 5.06 1.11 3.15 1.44 3.35 1.85 Asks the opinions of people like me before making decisions. 4.60 1.52 5.11 1.18 2.70 1.16 2.95 1.87 Takes the time with people like me to understand who we are and what we need. 4.94 1.26 5.00 1.28 3.52 1.58 3.35 1.67 Makes it easy to find the information people like me need. 4.63 1.48 5.26 1.20 3.85 1.66 3.75 1.79 Substantial Information 4.70 1.12 5.09 1.01 3.61 1.30 3.61 1.43 Provides information that is relevant to people like me. 4.97 1.12 5.26 1.17 3.79 1.47 3.78 1.69 Provides information that could be verified by an outside source, like an auditor. 4.77 1.44 5.40 1.24 3.79 1.65 3.90 1.88 Provides information that can be compared to previous performance. 4.71 1.51 5.34 1.11 3.76 1.62 3.58 1.63 Provides information that is complete. 4.63 1.33 4.91 1.27 3.48 1.44 3.53 1.55 Provides information that is easy for people like me to understand. 4.46 1.29 4.83 1.20 3.42 1.39 3.53 1.74 Provides accurate information to people like me. 4.83 1.27 4.89 1.45 3.55 1.46 3.08 1.67 Provides information to people like me in language that is clear. 4.60 1.22 5.00 1.19 3.52 1.33 3.80 1.71 Provides information that is reliable. 4.63 1.17 5.06 1.06 3.58 1.28 3.68 1.58

PAGE 124

124 Table 4 14. Continued Block 1 (N = 36) Block 2 (N = 34) Block 3 (N = 33) Block 4 (N = 40) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Accountability 4.84 1.13 5.26 1.04 3.84 1.25 3.59 1.20 Presents more than one side of controversial issues. 4.20 1.11 4.63 1.00 3.52 1.18 3.63 1.69 Is forthcoming with information that might be damaging to the organization. 4.80 1.57 5.31 1.32 3.36 1.75 2.80 1.51 Is open to criticism by people like me. 5.40 1.33 5.63 1.26 4.30 1.76 3.95 1.84 Freely admits when it has made mistakes. 5.14 1.44 5.54 1.40 4.55 1.79 3.78 1.53 Provides information that can be compared to industry standards. 4.66 1.37 5.17 1.22 3.45 1.46 3.80 1.604 Secrecy 4.07 .93 4.03 .91 3.55 .59 3.54 .78 Often leaves out important details in the information it provides to people like me. 3.83 1.36 4.03 1.34 2.97 1.38 3.00 1.73 Only discloses information when it is required. 3.37 1.17 2.94 1.06 4.42 1.28 4.33 1.58 Is slow to provide information to people like me. 4.09 1.36 4.51 1.31 3.33 1.32 2.98 1.66 Provides information that is full of jargon and technical language that is confusing to people like me. 4.31 1.30 4.17 1.71 3.67 1.38 3.65 1.55 Provides information that is intentionally written in a way to make it difficult to understand. 4.63 1.44 4.46 1.58 3.39 1.37 3.48 1.55 Blames outside factors that may have contributed to the outcome when reporting bad news. 4.20 1.59 4.54 1.60 3.27 1.49 3.23 1.29 Overall 4.35 .90 4.70 .86 3.43 1.01 3.36 1.08

PAGE 125

125 Table 4 15. Communicative transparency item means in experimental blocks 5 8 Block 5 (N = 39) Block 6 (N = 39) Block 7 (N = 34) Block 8 (N = 36) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Participation 3.36 1.42 2.65 1.13 1.80 .91 2.20 1.55 Asks for feedback from people like me about the quality of its information. 3.33 1.77 2.44 1.37 1.65 1.04 2.19 1.64 Involves people like me to help identify the information I need. 3.28 1.45 2.56 1.14 1.82 1.09 2.11 1.58 Provides detailed information to people like me. 3.13 1.56 2.38 1.29 1.74 1.02 2.14 1.61 Asks the opinions of people like me before making decisions. 3.69 1.69 2.85 1.51 1.85 1.64 2.17 1.75 Takes the time with people like me to understand who we are and what we need. 3.67 1.75 3.05 1.47 1.82 .97 2.19 1.60 Makes it easy to find the information people like me need. 3.08 1.44 2.62 1.48 1.91 1.55 2.39 1.71 Substantial Information 3.33 1.38 2.75 1.12 1.99 .954 2.36 1.28 Provides information that is relevant to people like me. 3.49 1.36 3.18 1.36 1.91 .87 2.44 1.72 Provides information that could be verified by an outside source, like an auditor. 3.21 1.66 2.67 1.38 1.85 1.56 2.36 1.61 Provides information that can be compared to previous performance. 3.23 1.51 2.82 1.57 2.35 1.72 3.03 1.75 Provides information that is complete. 3.05 1.61 2.46 1.19 2.03 1.51 2.11 1.33 Provides information that is easy for people like me to understand. 3.23 1.56 2.64 1.37 1.97 1.14 2.19 1.45 Provides accurate information to people like me. 3.38 1.55 2.51 1.28 2.00 1.52 2.17 1.52 Provides information to people like me in language that is clear. 3.31 1.59 2.85 1.50 1.85 1.05 2.31 1.58 Provides information that is reliable. 3.74 1.52 2.90 1.33 1.94 1.13 2.31 1.17

PAGE 126

126 Table 4 15. Continued Block 5 (N = 39) Block 6 (N = 39) Block 7 (N = 34) Block 8 (N = 36) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Accountability 3.33 1.26 2.64 1.10 2.10 .99 2.44 1.42 Presents more than one side of controversial issues. 3.77 1.40 3.18 1.43 2.26 1.50 2.53 1.59 Is forthcoming with information that might be damaging to the organization. 2.95 1.69 2.26 1.33 1.65 1.04 2.19 1.64 Is open to criticism by people like me. 3.74 1.65 2.69 1.59 2.88 2.20 2.94 2.12 Freely admits when it has made mistakes. 2.85 1.60 2.44 1.27 1.62 .92 1.89 1.24 Provides information that can be compared to industry standards. 3.33 1.56 2.64 1.46 2.09 1.58 2.67 1.72 Secrecy 3.52 .98 3.30 .59 3.38 .89 3.26 .78 Often leaves out important details in the information it provides to people like me. 3.67 1.80 3.62 1.87 3.38 2.51 3.33 2.31 Only discloses information when it is required. 4.26 1.52 5.10 1.33 6.06 1.13 5.69 1.17 Is slow to provide information to people like me. 3.05 1.79 2.41 1.14 2.26 1.71 2.22 1.78 Provides information that is full of jargon and technical language that is confusing to people like me. 3.18 1.55 2.59 1.25 2.53 1.44 2.72 1.68 Provides information that is intentionally written in a way to make it difficult to understand. 3.64 1.44 2.95 1.32 2.53 1.42 2.56 1.59 Blames outside factors that may have contributed to the outcome when reporting bad news. 2.87 1.81 2.26 1.27 2.41 1.94 2.00 1.22 Overall 3.23 1.01 2.70 .85 2.18 .72 2.43 1.03

PAGE 127

127 Table 4 16. Trust scale item means by experimental blocks 1 4. Block 1 (N = 36) Block 2 (N = 34) Block 3 (N = 33) Block 4 (N = 40) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Competence 5.15 1.06 5.11 1.24 3.59 1.35 3.67 1.59 I feel very confident about the skills of this oganization. 4.80 1.53 4.66 1.63 3.09 1.40 3.23 1.70 This organization has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do. 5.31 1.16 5.26 1.31 4.06 1.50 4.05 1.77 This organization is known to be successful at the things it tries to do. 5.34 1.11 5.43 1.22 3.61 1.48 3.73 1.77 Integrity 4.51 1.25 4.83 1.28 3.25 1.37 3.11 1.57 The organization treats people like me fairly and justly. 4.66 1.31 4.86 1.31 3.39 1.75 3.00 1.83 The organization can be relied on to keep its promises. 4.60 1.50 4.71 1.55 3.24 1.58 3.25 1.75 Sound principles seem to guide the behavior of this organization. 4.54 1.36 5.17 1.18 3.30 1.55 2.97 1.69 This organization does not mislead people like me. 4.26 1.52 4.57 1.50 3.06 1.09 3.20 1.74 Goodwill 4.59 1.37 5.02 1.24 3.32 1.50 3.11 1.58 This organization is interested in the well being of people like me, not just itself. 4.66 1.59 5.00 1.46 3.58 1.90 3.18 1.85 I believe this organization takes the opinions of people like me into account when making decisions. 4.57 1.46 5.06 1.49 3.18 1.40 2.85 1.79 Whenever this organization makes a decision I know it will be concerned about people like me. 4.54 1.34 5.00 1.19 3.21 1.52 3.30 1.74

PAGE 128

128 Table 4 16. Continued Block 1 (N = 36) Block 2 (N = 34) Block 3 (N = 33) Block 4 (N = 40) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Overall Trust 3.92 1.11 3.90 1.26 2.72 1.19 2.73 1.50 I think it is important to watch this organization closely so that it does not take advantage of people like me. [R] 3.46 1.31 3.23 1.29 2.36 1.19 2.38 1.46 people like me. 3.91 1.50 4.03 1.60 2.70 1.47 2.80 1.79 I trust the organization to take care of people like me. 4.40 1.48 4.46 1.58 3.09 1.40 3.00 1.78 Overall 4.54 1.07 4.73 1.17 3.22 1.30 3.15 1.47

PAGE 129

129 Table 4 17. Trust scale item means by experimental blocks 5 8. Block 5 (N = 39) Block 6 (N = 39) Block 7 (N = 34) Block 8 (N = 36) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Competence 4.17 1.31 3.82 1.31 2.41 1.04 2.73 1.06 I feel very confident about the skills of this organization. 3.36 1.60 2.90 1.47 1.74 1.08 1.86 1.20 This organization has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do. 4.56 1.48 4.13 1.64 2.79 1.51 3.11 1.41 This organization is known to be successful at the things it tries to do. 4.59 1.48 4.44 1.47 2.71 1.43 3.22 1.51 Integrity 3.26 1.57 2.72 1.25 1.701 .79 2.06 1.09 The organization treats people like me fairly and justly. 3.18 1.64 2.82 1.39 1.68 .91 1.78 1.07 The organization can be relied on to keep its promises. 3.21 1.75 2.62 1.39 1.71 .91 1.92 1.11 Sound principles seem to guide the behavior of this organization. 3.38 1.73 2.90 1.43 1.76 .89 2.33 1.64 This organization does not mislead people like me. 3.28 1.70 2.56 1.25 1.68 .81 2.19 1.43 Goodwill 3.61 1.56 2.85 1.26 1.75 .85 2.16 1.49 This organization is interested in the well being of people like me, not just itself. 3.59 1.73 2.74 1.52 1.94 1.07 2.17 1.65 I believe this organization takes the opinions of people like me into account when making decisions. 3.49 1.82 2.95 1.49 1.47 .86 1.97 1.52 Whenever this organization makes a decision I know it will be concerned about people like me. 3.74 1.53 2.87 1.38 1.82 .94 2.33 1.84

PAGE 130

130 Table 4 17. Continued Block 5 (N = 39) Block 6 (N = 39) Block 7 (N = 34) Block 8 (N = 36) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Overall Trust 3.02 1.30 2.38 1.08 1.75 .89 1.73 .98 I think it is important to watch this organization closely so that it does not take advantage of people like me. [R] 2.95 1.64 2.23 1.16 1.56 .86 1.69 1.09 people like me. 2.92 1.60 2.31 1.15 2.03 1.45 1.75 1.32 I trust the organization to take care of people like me. 3.18 1.65 2.59 1.25 1.65 .95 1.75 1.05 Overall 3.50 1.34 2.93 1.11 1.89 .80 2.16 .99

PAGE 131

131 Table 4 18. Behavioral intentions scale item means by experimental block. Block 1 (N = 36) Block 2 (N = 34) Block 3 (N = 33) Block 4 (N = 40) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Systems products for stormwater management by voting in favor of the purchase in the next election. 4.57 1.56 4.34 1.66 3.00 1.64 2.45 1.84 I would encourage friends and relatives to vote in favor of the purchase of Vortex Systems products in the next election. 4.43 1.50 4.17 1.56 2.70 1.40 2.53 1.81 I would say positive things about Vortex Systems to other people. 4.46 1.44 4.34 1.53 2.97 1.51 2.73 1.83 Overall 4.486 1.46 4.286 1.53 2.889 1.45 2.567 1.77 Table 4 18. Continued Block 5 (N = 39) Block 6 (N = 39) Block 7 (N = 34) Block 8 (N = 36) Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD I would Systems products for stormwater management by voting in favor of the purchase in the next election. 3.03 1.77 2.67 1.48 1.71 1.00 1.78 1.17 I would encourage friends and relatives to vote in favor of the purchase of Vortex Systems products in the next election. 3.00 1.73 2.46 1.45 1.59 .93 1.78 1.17 I would say positive things about Vortex Systems to other people. 3.13 1.78 2.72 1.50 1.62 .85 1.78 1.07 Overall 3.051 1.68 2.615 1.44 1.637 .89 1.778 1.13

PAGE 132

132 Table 4 19. Organizational transparency main effects on trust Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 2 Corrected Model 641.08 a 234 2.74 32.51 .000 .99 Intercept 55.95 1 55.95 663.94 .000 .92 Deceptive/Truthful 1.99 6 .33 3.94 .00 .29 Insincere/Sincere 2.12 6 .35 4.12 .00 .31 Insensitive/Sensitive 1.41 6 .23 2.78 .02 .23 Inflexible/Flexible 1.14 6 .19 2.26 .05 .19 Incompetent/Competent 1.76 6 .29 3.48 .01 .27 Uncaring/Caring 1.30 6 .22 2.58 .03 .21 Error 4.80 57 .08 Total 3738.11 292 Corrected Total 645.88 291 a. R Squared = .99 (Adjusted R Squared = .96) Table 4 20. Communicative transparency main effects on trust Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 2 Corrected Model 641.08 a 234 2.74 32.51 .000 .99 Intercept 55.95 1 55.95 663.94 .000 .92 Often leaves out important details in the information it provides to people like me. 1.35 6 .23 2.67 .02 .22 Provides information that can be compared to industry standards. 1.74 6 .29 3.43 .01 .27 Provides detailed information to people like me. 1.69 6 .28 3.35 .01 .26 Provides information that is easy for people like me to understand. 1.56 6 .26 3.08 .01 .25 Involves people like me to help identify the information I need. 1.71 6 .29 3.38 .01 .26 Error 4.80 57 .08 Total 3738.11 292 Corrected Total 645.88 291 a. R Squared = .99 (Adjusted R Squared = .96)

PAGE 133

133 Table 4 21. Organizational transparency main effects on behavioral intentions Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 2 Corrected Model 844.47 a 234 3.61 11.02 .000 .98 Intercept 56.24 1 56.24 171.73 .000 .75 Impersonal/Personal 4.78 6 .80 2.43 .04 .20 Closed/Open 6.36 6 1.06 3.24 .01 .25 Not credible/Credible 6.13 6 1.02 3.12 .01 .25 Unreliable/Reliable 5.86 6 .98 2.98 .01 .24 Not willing to listen/Willing to listen 6.41 6 1.07 3.26 .01 .26 Uncaring/Caring 5.30 6 .88 2.70 .02 .22 Error 18.67 57 .33 Total 3323.89 292 Corrected Total 863.14 291 a. R Squared = .98 (Adjusted R Squared = .89) Table 4 22. Communicative transparency main effects on behavioral intentions Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 2 Corrected Model 844.47 a 234 3.61 11.02 .000 .98 Intercept 56.24 1 56.24 171.73 .000 .75 Provides information that can be compared to industry standards. 7.15 6 1.19 3.64 .004 .28 Provides information that is easy for people like me to understand. 5.25 6 .88 2.67 .02 .22 Freely admits when it has made mistakes. 5.64 6 .94 2.87 .02 .23 Provides information that is complete. 3.91 6 .65 1.99 .08 .17 Presents more than one side of controversial issues. 6.02 6 1.00 3.06 .01 .24 Error 18.67 57 .33 Total 3323.89 292 Corrected Total 863.14 291 a. R Squared = .978 (Adjusted R Squared = .890)

PAGE 134

134 Table 4 23. Exploratory factor analysis of transparency scales Component 1 2 3 Makes it easy to find the information people like me need. .79 .36 .18 Provides information that can be compared to industry standards. .79 .36 .12 Provides information that could be verified by an outside source, like an auditor. .78 .39 .20 Provides information that is reliable. .78 .47 .21 Provides information that is easy for people like me to understand. .78 .39 .20 Is forthcoming with information that might be damaging to the organization. .77 .33 .28 Provides detailed information to people like me. .77 .39 .21 Takes the time with people like me to understand who we are and what we need. .76 .46 .24 Presents more than one side of controversial issues. .75 .43 .21 Provides information that can be compared to previous performance. .74 .37 .17 Asks for feedback from people like me about the quality of its information. .73 .45 .19 Provides accurate information to people like me. .72 .49 .21 Provides information that is full of jargon and technical language that is confusing to people like me. .70 .51 .19 Asks the opinions of people like me before making decisions. .70 .46 .12 Freely admits when it has made mistakes. .69 .43 .29 Is slow to provide information to people like me. .66 .45 .31 Blames outside factors that may have contributed to the outcomes when reporting bad news. .65 .57 .25 Only discloses information when it is required. .65 .57 .25 Provides information that is intentionally written in a way to make it difficult to understand. .63 .37 .09 Is open to criticism from people like me. .61 .30 .27 Reliable vs. Unreliable .40 .81 .17 Credible vs. Not credible .43 .81 .21 Competent vs. Incompetent .36 .80 .19 Sincere vs. Insincere .40 .79 .21 Ethical vs. Unethical .37 .78 .19 Intelligent vs. Unintelligent .23 .77 .07 Deceptive vs. Truthful .39 .76 .26 Consistent vs. Inconsistent .36 .76 .16 Sensitive vs. Insensitive .48 .74 .26

PAGE 135

135 Table 4 23. Continued Component 1 2 3 Caring vs. Uncaring .52 .74 .25 Arrogant vs. Humble .52 .69 .24 Flexible vs. Inflexible .52 .68 .27 Willing to listen vs. Not willing to listen .56 .67 .27 Open vs. Closed .56 .66 .26 Personal vs. Impersonal .49 .65 .22 Provides information that is relevant to people like me. .37 .19 .67 Provides information to people like me in language that is clear. .33 .29 .66 Often leaves out important details in the information it provides to people like me. .12 .11 .65 Involve people like me to help identify the information I need. .39 .28 .62 Provides information that is complete. .45 .12 .62 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. Rotation Method: Varimax with Kaiser Normalization. a. Rotation converged in 6 iterations.

PAGE 136

136 Table 4 24. Exploratory factor analysis of transparency scales: Eigenvalues and variance Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 26.79 66.97 66.97 26.79 66.97 66.97 14.14 35.34 35.34 2 1.90 4.79 71.72 1.90 4.75 71.72 12.25 30.62 65.97 3 1.46 3.64 75.36 1.46 3.64 75.36 3.76 9.40 75.36 4 .90 2.25 77.61 5 .78 1.96 79.57 6 .68 1.70 81.27 7 .63 1.56 82.83 8 .56 1.39 84.22 9 .49 1.23 85.45 10 .47 1.17 86.63 11 .46 1.14 87.76 12 .42 1.05 88.81 13 .38 .94 89.75 14 .34 .85 90.60 15 .32 .81 91.41 16 .29 .73 92.13 17 .26 .65 92.79 18 .25 .63 93.41 19 .24 .59 94.00 20 .21 .51 94.52 21 .19 .48 95.00 22 .18 .46 95.45 23 .17 .43 95.88 24 .17 .41 96.29

PAGE 137

137 Table 4 24. Continued Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 25 .16 .40 96.69 26 .14 .36 97.05 27 .14 .34 97.39 28 .13 .33 97.72 29 .12 .30 98.02 30 .12 .29 98.30 31 .10 .26 98.56 32 .10 .25 98.81 33 .09 .22 99.03 34 .08 .19 99.22 35 .07 .18 99.40 36 .07 .17 99.57 37 .07 .17 99.74 38 .06 .14 99.88 39 .05 .12 100.000 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

PAGE 138

138 Table 4 25. Exploratory factor analysis of trust and behavioral intentions scales Component 1 I trust the organization to take care of people like me. .94 The organization treats people like me fairly. .93 I would say positive things about Vortex Systems to other people. .93 The organization can be relied upon to keep its promises. .93 I would encourage friends and relatives to vote in favor of the purchase of Cortex Systems products in the next election. .92 I feel very confident about the skills of the organization. .92 products for stormwater management by voting in favor of the purchase in the next election. .91 I believe this organization takes the opinions of people like me into account when making decisions. .90 Sound principles seem to guide the behavior of this organization. .90 This organization is interested in the well being of people like me, not just itself. .89 This organization does not mislead people like me. .88 .88 Whenever this organization makes a decision I know it will be concerned about people like me. .87 This organization has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do. .75 This organization is known to be successful at the things it tries to do. .74 I think it is important to watch this organization closely so that it does not take advantage of people like me [R]. .59 [R] = reverse item. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 1 component extracted.

PAGE 139

139 Table 4 26. Exploratory factor analysis of trust and behavioral intentions scales: Eigenvalues and variance Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 12.15 75.91 75.91 12.15 75.91 75.91 2 .81 5.08 80.99 3 .56 3.51 84.50 4 .41 2.58 87.08 5 .39 2.46 89.54 6 .34 2.11 91.65 7 .26 1.63 93.28 8 .21 1.28 94.56 9 .18 1.10 95.66 10 .15 .94 96.61 11 .13 .83 97.43 12 .12 .73 98.17 13 .10 .61 98.77 14 .09 .55 99.32 15 .07 .43 99.76 16 .04 .24 100.00 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

PAGE 140

140 Table 4 27. Exploratory factor analysis of trust scale Component 1 I trust the organization to take care of people like me. .95 The organization treats people like me fairly and justly. .93 The organization can be relied upon to keep its promises. .93 I feel very confident about the skills of this organization. .92 I believe this organization takes the opinions of people like me into account when making decisions. .90 Sound principles seem to guide the behavior of this organization. .90 This organization is interested in the well being of people like me, not just itself. .89 This organization does not mislead people like me. .89 organization make decisions for people like me. .87 Whenever this organization makes a decision I know it will be concerned about people like me. .87 This organization has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do. .76 This organization is known to be successful at the things it tries to do. .74 I think it is important to watch this organization closely so that it does not take advantage of people like me. [R] .59 [R] = reverse item. Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 1 component extracted.

PAGE 141

141 Table 4 28. Exploratory factor analysis of trust scale: Eigenvalues and variance Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 9.67 74.41 74.41 9.67 74.41 74.41 2 .81 6.22 80.64 3 .55 4.20 84.84 4 .40 3.08 87.92 5 .35 2.71 90.63 6 .26 2.03 92.66 7 .21 1.58 94.23 8 .18 1.41 95.64 9 .16 1.19 96.83 10 .13 1.01 97.84 11 .12 .92 98.76 12 .09 .70 99.46 13 .07 .54 100.00 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

PAGE 142

142 Table 4 29. Exploratory factor analysis of behavioral intentions scale Component 1 for stormwater management by voting in favor of the purchase in the next election. .98 I would encourage friends and relatives to vote in favor of the purchase of Cortex Systems products in the next election. .98 I would say positive things about Vortex Systems to other people. .96 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis. a. 1 component extracted. Table 4 30. Exploratory factor analysis of behavioral intentions scale: Eigenvalues and variance Initial Eigenvalues Extraction Sums of Squared Loadings Component Total % of Variance Cumulative % Total % of Variance Cumulative % 1 2.85 95.12 95.12 2.85 95.12 95.12 2 .11 3.54 98.66 3 .04 1.34 100.00 Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

PAGE 143

143 Table 4 31. Manipulation of stimuli check by organization type Organizational Transparency (OrgTrans OrgTrans_TOTAL) Non transparent Organization (OrgTrans OrgTrans_TOTAL) Sig. N M SD N M SD Nonprofit 75 4.30 1.47 67 2.63 1.33 p < .001 Communicative Transparency (ComTrans ComTransTotal) Non transparent Communication (ComTrans ComTransTotal) N M SD N M SD Nonprofit 69 3.92 1.06 73 2.74 1.02 p < .001 Organizational Transparency (OrgTrans OrgTrans_TOTAL) Non transparent Organization (OrgTrans OrgTrans_TOTAL) N M SD N M SD For Profit 73 3.99 1.56 77 2.77 1.42 p < .001 Communicative Transparency (ComTrans ComTransTotal) Non transparent Communication (ComTrans ComTransTotal) N M SD N M SD For Profit 74 3.97 1.19 76 2.56 .94 p < .001

PAGE 144

144 Table 4 32. OrgTrans ComTrans Mean SD N Transparent Communicative Transparency 4.59 1.09 36 Not Transparent Communication 3.50 1.34 39 Total 4.02 1.34 75 Not Transparent Communicative Transparency 3.22 1.30 33 Not Transparent Communication 1.89 .80 34 Total 2.54 1.26 67 Total Communicative Transparency 3.90 1.35 68 Not Transparent Communication 2.75 1.38 73 Total 3.32 1.49 142 Table 4 effect on trust in charitable nonprofit organizations Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 2 Corrected Model 129.18 a 3 43.06 32.10 .000 .41 Intercept 1538.00 1 1538.00 1146.43 .000 .89 OrgTrans 78.19 1 78.19 58.29 .000 .30 ComTrans 52.07 1 52.07 38.81 .000 .22 OrgTrans ComTrans .52 1 .52 .39 .54 .00 Error 185.14 138 1.34 Total 1882.68 142 Corrected Total 314.32 141 a. R Squared = .41 (Adjusted R Squared = .40)

PAGE 145

145 Table 4 intentions towards charitable nonprofit organizations OrgTrans ComTrans Mean SD N Transparent Communicative Transparency 4.52 1.45 36 Not Transparent Communication 3.05 1.68 39 Total 3.76 1.73 75 Not Transparent Communicative Transparency 2.89 1.45 33 Not Transparent Communication 1.64 .89 34 Total 2.25 1.34 67 Total Communicative Transparency 3.74 1.66 68 Not Transparent Communication 2.39 1.54 73 Total 3.05 1.73 142 Table 4 intentions towards charitable nonprofit organizations Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 2 Corrected Model 146.35 a 3 48.78 24.53 .000 .35 Intercept 1293.27 1 1293.27 650.29 .000 .83 OrgTrans 81.88 1 81.88 41.17 .000 .23 ComTrans 65.34 1 65.34 32.86 .000 .19 OrgTrans ComTrans .41 1 .41 .21 .65 .00 Error 274.45 138 1.99 Total 1739.11 142 Corrected Total 420.80 141 a. R Squared = .35 (Adjusted R Squared = .33)

PAGE 146

146 Table 4 for profit businesses OrgTrans ComTrans Mean SD N Transparent Communicative Transparency 4.68 1.16 34 Not Transparent Communication 2.93 1.11 39 Total 3.74 1.43 74 Not Transparent Communicative Transparency 3.15 1.47 40 Not Transparent Communication 2.14 .98 37 Total 2.66 1.35 77 Total Communicative Transparency 3.85 1.54 75 Not Transparent Communication 2.54 1.12 76 Total 3.19 1.49 150 Table 4 profit businesses Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 2 Corrected Model 119.75 a 3 39.92 27.69 .000 .36 Intercept 1552.51 1 1552.51 1076.84 .000 .88 OrgTrans 50.57 1 50.57 35.08 .000 .19 ComTrans 71.61 1 71.61 49.67 .000 .25 OrgTrans ComTrans 5.16 1 5.16 3.58 .06 .02 Error 210.49 146 1.44 Total 1855.43 150 Corrected Total 330.24 149 a. R Squared = .36 (Adjusted R Squared = .35)

PAGE 147

147 Table 4 profit businesses OrgTrans ComTrans Mean SD N Transparent Communicative Transparency 4.25 1.54 34 Not Transparent Communication 2.62 1.44 39 Total 3.37 1.69 73 Not Transparent Communicative Transparency 2.57 1.77 40 Not Transparent Communication 1.78 1.11 37 Total 2.19 1.53 77 Total Communicative Transparency 3.34 1.86 75 Not Transparent Communication 2.21 1.35 76 Total 2.77 1.71 150 Table 4 towards for profit businesses Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 2 Corrected Model 112.55 a 3 37.52 16.90 .000 .26 Intercept 1173.75 1 1173.75 528.82 .000 .78 OrgTrans 58.84 1 58.84 26.51 .000 .15 ComTrans 54.36 1 54.36 24.49 .000 .14 OrgTrans ComTrans 6.70 1 6.70 3.02 .08 .02 Error 324.06 146 2.22 Total 1584.78 150 Corrected Total 436.61 149 a. R Squared = .26 (Adjusted R Squared = .24)

PAGE 148

148 Table 4 40. Descriptive results of interaction among organizational transparency, communicative transparency and type of organization on trust OrgTrans ComTrans OrgType Mean SD N Transparent Communicative Transparency Nonprofit 4.59 1.09 36 For Profit 4.68 1.16 34 Total 4.63 1.12 70 Not Transparent Communication Nonprofit 3.50 1.34 39 For Profit 2.93 1.11 39 Total 3.21 1.25 78 Total Nonprofit 4.02 1.34 75 For Profit 3.74 1.43 73 Total 3.88 1.39 148 Not Transparent Communicative Transparency Nonprofit 3.22 1.30 33 For Profit 3.15 1.47 40 Total 3.18 1.39 73 Not Transparent Communication Nonprofit 1.89 .80 34 For Profit 2.14 .98 37 Total 2.02 .90 71 Total Nonprofit 2.54 1.26 67 For Profit 2.66 1.35 77 Total 2.61 1.31 144 Total Communicative Transparency Nonprofit 3.93 1.37 69 For Profit 3.85 1.54 74 Total 3.89 1.46 143 Not Transparent Communication Nonprofit 2.75 1.38 73 For Profit 2.54 1.12 76 Total 2.64 1.25 149 Total Nonprofit 3.32 1.49 142 For Profit 3.19 1.49 150 Total 3.25 1.49 292

PAGE 149

149 Table 4 41. Significance of interaction among organizational transparency, communicative transparency and type of organization on trust Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 2 Corrected Model 250.26 a 7 35.75 25.66 .000 .39 Intercept 3089.71 1 3089.71 2217.95 .000 .89 OrgTrans 127.62 1 127.62 91.61 .000 .24 ComTrans 122.61 1 122.61 88.02 .000 .24 OrgType .40 1 .40 .29 .59 .00 OrgTrans ComTrans 1.14 1 1.14 .82 .37 .00 OrgTrans OrgType 1.90 1 1.90 1.37 .24 .00 ComTrans OrgType .53 1 .53 .38 .54 .00 OrgTrans ComTrans OrgType 4.41 1 4.41 3.17 .07 .01 Error 395.63 284 1.39 Total 3738.11 292 Corrected Total 645.88 291 R Squared = .387 (Adjusted R Squared = .372)

PAGE 150

150 Figure 4 1. Graphical representation of the effect of organizational transparency and type of organization on trust.

PAGE 151

151 Figure 4 2. Bar chart representation of the effect of organizational transparency and type of organization on trust.

PAGE 152

152 Figure 4 3. Graphical representation of the effect of communicative transparency and type of organization on trust.

PAGE 153

153 Figure 4 4. Bar chart representation of the effect of communicative transparency and type of organization on trust.

PAGE 154

154 Table 4 42. Descriptive results of interaction among organizational transparency, communicative transparency and type of organization on behavioral intentions. OrgTrans ComTrans OrgType Mean SD N Transparent Communicative Transparency Nonprofit 4.52 1.45 36 For Profit 4.25 1.54 34 Total 4.39 1.49 70 Not Transparent Communication Nonprofit 3.05 1.68 39 For Profit 2.62 1.44 39 Total 2.83 1.57 78 Total Nonprofit 3.76 1.73 75 For Profit 3.37 1.67 73 Total 3.57 1.72 148 Not Transparent Communicative Transparency Nonprofit 2.89 1.45 33 For Profit 2.57 1.77 40 Total 2.71 1.63 73 Not Transparent Communication Nonprofit 1.64 .89 34 For Profit 1.78 1.11 37 Total 1.71 1.01 71 Total Nonprofit 2.25 1.34 67 For Profit 2.19 1.53 77 Total 2.22 1.44 144 Total Communicative Transparency Nonprofit 3.74 1.66 69 For Profit 3.34 1.86 74 Total 3.53 1.77 143 Not Transparent Communication Nonprofit 2.39 1.54 73 For Profit 2.21 1.35 76 Total 2.30 1.44 149 Total Nonprofit 3.05 1.73 142 For Profit 2.77 1.71 150 Total 2.90 1.72 292

PAGE 155

155 Table 4 43. Significance of interaction among organizational transparency, communicative transparency and type of organization on behavioral intentions Source Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. 2 Corrected Model 264.63 a 7 37.81 17.94 .000 .31 Intercept 2466.75 1 2466.75 1170.51 .000 .81 OrgTrans 140.06 1 140.06 66.46 .000 .19 ComTrans 119.58 1 119.58 56.74 .000 .17 OrgType 3.56 1 3.56 1.69 .20 .00 OrgTrans ComTrans 5.13 1 5.13 2.43 .12 .00 OrgTrans OrgType 1.29 1 1.29 .61 .43 .00 ComTrans OrgType .43 1 .43 .20 .65 .00 OrgTrans ComTrans OrgType 1.81 1 1.81 .86 .36 .00 Error 598.51 284 2.11 Total 3323.89 292 Corrected Total 863.14 291 a. R Squared = .31 (Adjusted R Squared = .29)

PAGE 156

156 Figure 4 5. Graphical representation of the effect of organizational transparency and type of organization on behavioral intentions.

PAGE 157

157 Figure 4 6. Bar chart representation of the effect of organizational transparency and type of organization on behavioral intentions.

PAGE 158

158 Figure 4 7. Graphical representation of the effect of communicative transparency and type of organization on behavioral intentions

PAGE 159

159 Figure 4 8. Bar chart representation of the effect of communicative transparency and type of organization on behavioral intentions

PAGE 160

160 Figure 4 behavioral intentions based on communicative transparency

PAGE 161

161 Figure 4 10. Model o f non behavioral intentions based on communicative transparency

PAGE 162

162 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION Using experimental design, this study explored the two constructs of transparency organizational and communicat ive and tested their effect on trust and behavioral intentions of stakeholders in two types of organizations the charitable nonprofit and the for profit business. Given the increased demands for and interest in transparency and the continued growth and im portance of the nonprofit sector, there were several goals to this study. First, it was intended to add to the body of knowledge in public relations through increased understanding of the construct of transparency. The second goal was to add to the body o f knowledge in nonprofit and business management through increased understanding of the differences in trust attributable to each type of organization. The final goal sought to add to the body of knowledge in crisis communication through increased underst anding of the effect of transparency on trust and behavioral intentions of stakeholders in crisis situations. Two hundred and ninety two participants were recruited from the population of the general public that use the Internet to take part in one of eig ht experimental scenarios that incorporated two fictitious newspaper articles followed by a survey of trust and behavioral intentions. Results of this study found that t ransparent organizations that communicate transparently have greater levels of trust and behavioral intentions overall. However, the results of comparative analysis between charitable nonprofit organizations and their for profit counterparts was mixed, wi th the nonprofit organizations achieving higher levels of trust and behavioral intentions in most

PAGE 163

163 of the experimental situations except for the doubly transparent and doubly non transparent groups where the for profit businesses reported higher levels of t rust, but not higher levels of behavioral intentions. The remainder of the chapter is organized into three parts. The first section provides a summary of findings from Chapter 4. This section is followed by interpretation and implication of the results and the chapter concludes with a discussion of limitations to the study and directions for future research. Summary of Results This section summarizes the results described in Chapter 4, including descriptive statistics and two way ANOVA findings of: 1) th e effect of organizational transparency and communicative transparency on trust and behavioral intentions, 2) the effect of transparency on trust and behavioral intentions in charitable nonprofit organizations, 3) the effect of transparency on trust and be havioral intentions in for profit businesses, and 4) the interaction among organizational transparency, communicative transparency and type of organization on trust and behavioral intentions. This section also provides information on the results of explor atory factor analysis of scales used within the study. As described above, two way ANOVA was used to test for independent variable effects. Three independent variables were tested in this study, two relating to transparency (organizational transparency vs non organizational transparency), (communicative transparency vs. non transparent communication), and the third relating to type of organization (charitable nonprofit vs. for trust scale, based on that developed by Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999), was used to measure differences in effect of both communicative and organizational transparency or lack of transparency on the dependent variable trust. A three item scale, based on

PAGE 164

164 1996) scales was used to measure differences in effect of transparency and lack of transparency on the dependent variable behavioral intentions. Organizational and Communicative Transparency Transparency is comprised of two constructs, one that reflects o rganizational traits such as integrity, competence, reliability, sincerity, and consistency, which the communicative traits such as timeliness, accuracy, receptiveness t o feedback from stakeholders, and disclosure of information, which the researcher defined as determinants: integrity, respect, and openness. Communicative transparency i s measured through four determinants: participation, substantial information, accountability, and secrecy. Organizational transparency Two way ANOVA identified main effects for 6 of the 15 items measuring rency and its effect on trust. Among these factors were impressions of sincerity and truthfulness, as well as indications of sensitivity and caring. Moreover, participants identified with impressions of competence and flexibility within the organization. perceptions of organizational transparency as related to their behavioral intentions. Of these, there was just one that overlapped with the significance of organizational t ransparency on trust and that was the perception of being a caring or uncaring organization. Other significant factors relating to behavioral intentions were perceptions

PAGE 165

165 of credibility, reliability, and willingness to listen, as well as impressions of ope nness and being personal. importance for participants in the doubly transparent groups, yet was most important among those who received the non transparent communicative response treatments. Respect had a dichotomous effect for participants, with those receiving the communicative transparency treatment placing strongest emphasis on these items than transparen t communication treatment placing the least emphasis on this determinant of overall perceptions of organizational transparency, neither achieving highly positive or neg ative impressions, with the exception of Blocks 3 and 4. Within those groups, which represented the non transparent charitable organizations and businesses that utilized perception of organizational transparency. Communicative transparency Following two way ANOVA of the 25 items comprising the construct, five items found to have main effe cts on behavioral intentions. Of those, two items overlapped, Scale rel iability for this construct was strong and the items factored together into two components. Though the items did not factor into four components as described by

PAGE 166

166 Rawlins (2009) the reason for this may be attributable to the sample used. The population for internal stakeholders whereas the population for this study was members of the general public, or external stakeholders to the fictitious organization used. As internal stakeholders, employees may be better able to appreciate subtle differences in determinant factors than external stakeholders. factor of communicative transparency. Moreover, items such as mean scores within the groups that received the communicative transparency treatment (Blocks 1 4). As a determinant of overall communicative tran transparency groups and the least importance within one of the two remaining mixed groups. Within the least transparent organizations and two of the four m ixed least to communicative transparency. secrecy had the highest mean scores among the groups that received the non transparent communicative treatment and the lowest mean scores among those that received the communicative rmation it provides to people

PAGE 167

1 67 least transparent groups and as the least important determinant in the most transparent groups. Trust Two dependent variables were establi shed for this study. The first of these, trust, is comprised of three determinants and is defined within organization public p. 19). Rawlins (2008) based his component intended to measure overall trust. Mean scores for trust items were consistent across groups, highest in the transparent groups th at used transparent communication and lowest in the non transparent groups that did not use transparent communication. This indicates stability in the scale, and indeed, the scale reliability test for the trust construct was strong. Exploratory factor an alysis of trust returned just one component, rather than three or four as indicated by the Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999) or Rawlins (2008) scales but, as described above, this is likely attributable to the sample, or to the extremes created by the method, an d not to a flaw in the scales. participants with highest levels in the doubly transparent g roups and lowest in the doubly non transparent groups. Among all the determinant factors of trust, ant by all

PAGE 168

168 were neither highest nor lowest in importance to determining trust, achieving middle ground across all groups. This indicates that items trust. Moreover, across al were perceived as least important in determining trust. The result is unsurprising as is a compilation measure. Behavioral Intentions The second of two dependent variables within this study, behavioral intentions are word of mouth intent. For th e purposes of this study, only positive behavioral intentions or the lack of positive behavioral intentions were measured. Following the pattern of the other variables, behavioral intentions achieved the highest mean scores in the doubly transparent group s and the lowest in the doubly non transparent groups, with mid level scores in the mixed transparency treatments. In all but one block, the item that purchase of Vortex favor of the purcha participants.

PAGE 169

169 Hypotheses Hypothesis 1 Results of the two way ANOVA used to test the hypothesis rejected the null hypothesis, thus providing support for hypotheses 1a, 1b, and 1c. Ma in effects were found for both organizational transparency and communicative transparency on each of the dependent variables, trust and behavioral intentions. No interaction effects were found for organizational transparency and communicative transparency with respect to trust or behavioral intentions. Results of the test implied that levels of trust and behavioral intentions varied significantly depending on perceptions of organizational and communicative transparency. Hypothesis 2 Again, two way ANOV A was used to test the hypothesis and results provided support for each of the 3 subsections, hypotheses 2a, 2b, and 2c. The null hypothesis was rejected in all cases. Furthermore, main effects were found for organizational transparency and for communica tive transparency on both trust and behavioral intentions. No interaction effect was identified. Like the charitable nonprofit results above, results of this test indicated that levels of trust and behavioral intentions varied significantly depending on perceived organizational and communicative transparency. Hypothesis 3 suggested that there would be interaction among organization type, reputation for organizational transparency and communicative form of response on trust and behavioral intentions in cri sis situations. Results of the two way ANOVA indicate failure to reject the null hypothesis. In other words, results of the test demonstrated no significance in the levels of trust or behavioral intentions as the result of interaction among the three ind ependent variables organizational transparency, communicative transparency, and type of organization. Moreover, there were no demonstrated

PAGE 170

170 differences in levels of trust or behavioral intentions as the result of interaction among the various pairs of inde pendent variables (organizational transparency and communicative transparency, organizational transparency and type of organization, communicative transparency and type of organization). Individually, significant main effects were found for organizational transparency and for communicative transparency but not for type of organization. Implications for Theory and Practice Overall Importance of Transparency Trust is a vital commodity for organizations of all types (Bandsuch, et al., 2008; Ingenhoff & Sommer, 2010). As the recent Echo Research and International Business Leaders Forum (2010) publication, A world in trust leadership and corporate social responsibility technological business point of view, you need money in the bank if you meet a crisis. s, donors, or other supporters in times of organizational crisis. In fact, the 2011 Edelman 25% of people will believe negative information about organizations that the y trust after hearing it once, compared to 57% of people who will believe negative information about organizations they do not trust after hearing the information just once. factor for According to the 2011 Edelman Trust Barometer (Edelman, 2011a), trust:

PAGE 171

171 is based on the expectation for companies to act collaboratively to benefit society not jus t shareholders; be transparent about their operations and profit engines; and engage using a wide range of spokespeople and all forms of media mainstream, new, social, and owned. (p. 8) Results of this study found that each of the two transparency construc ts organizational transparency and communicative transparency have independent effects on the levels of trust placed in both charitable nonprofit organizations and for profit businesses. These results demonstrated the significance of organizational transp arency to trust and positive behavioral intentions, demonstrated the significance of communicative transparency to positive behavioral intentions of stakeholders and transparenc y were significantly tied to trust. Organizational transparency is the reputation an organization holds for transparency, in other words, the reputation it carries for trustworthiness based on ions from the media and support from others. Results of this study found certain determinants of organizational transparency to have greater effects on trust and behavioral intentions of stakeholders found to have a dichotomous effect on trust, depending on levels of communicative transparency displayed by the organization. This implies that participants were sensitive to the communicative form of response of the organizations, highly respecting those who communicated transparently and lacking respect for those who did not. Thus, whereas organizational transparency and communicative transparency have independent effects on trust and behavioral intentions, the manner in which an organization communicate s can greatly affect its reputation as open, respectful, and filled with integrity. This concept is supported by Yee

PAGE 172

172 es; these aspects will positively Communicative transparency reflects the manner in which an organization provides information to, receives feedback from, and interacts with its st akeholders. Results of this study demonstrated that the more transparent an organization, the more it will be perceived by stakeholders as embodying the characteristics of accountability. Such characteristics include admitting to mistakes, accepting cri ticism, opening oneself to comparison with industry standards and presenting more than one side of organization needs to show enthusiasm in accepting responsibilit y for its actions, thus Conversely, the less transparent an organization, the less it will be perceived by stakeholders as welcoming participation and the more it will be regarded as limiting opportunities to obtain information, provide feedback, or interact with the organization. As such, non transparent organizations will achieve and maintain less trust than their transparent counterparts. Yee and Yeung (2010) summed it well whe n they noted, Hypothesis 1 investigated the effect of transparency in charitable nonprofit organizations and Hypothesis 2 investigated the co nstruct in for profit businesses. Testing of these hypotheses demonstrated the importance of organizational transparency and communicative transparency in each type of organization. In both the

PAGE 173

173 charitable nonprofit organization and for profit businesses, organizations that carried the characteristics of organizational transparency and communicated transparently achieved more than twice the levels of trust than non transparent organizations. This is an important result because it effectively demonstrates the impact of transparency on that caused death. Comparative Significance of Transparency in Different Types of Organizations Charitable nonprofit organizations are founded on public trust. A prior study by Handy, et al. (2010) demonstrated that stakeholders generally place greater trust in charitable nonprofit organizations than for profit entities. Further, given a choice, stakeholders choose charitable nonprofit organizations over for profit businesses for medical care and education. As such, the current study hypothesized that charitable nonprofit organizations would achieve significantly different levels of trust than their for profit counterparts. However, r esults of the study did not support this hypothesis. Overall, the transparent charitable nonprofit organizations were perceived as more trustworthy than the for profit businesses, and non transparent charitable nonprofit organizations were perceived as les s trustworthy than for profit businesses. Though the extent of the difference was not significant, it was evident and bears investigating in future studies. Moreover, the overall transparent charitable nonprofit organizations inspired more positive beha vioral intentions than for profit businesses and though they did not fall to as low a level as the non transparent for profit businesses, the non transparent non profits produced a larger loss of positive behavioral intentions. In other words, the transpa rent charitable nonprofit organizations began higher and fell further when perceived as non transparent by stakeholders.

PAGE 174

174 The reason for the difference in perception is not clear, but it may have something organizations regardless of merit (p. 477). As such, the charitable nonprofit organizations are granted greater, though in this case insignificant, levels of trust than for profit businesses. Conversely, non transparent c haritable nonprofits are judged more harshly than for profit businesses, perhaps because public expectation of nonprofit trustworthiness is greater than that for businesses. In other words, charitable nonprofit organizations may enjoy higher levels of tru st because of a perceived halo but when the halo slips, nonprofits are held more accountable than a for profit business in the same situation. Alternately, loss of trust could be due to factors noted in The Economist wards charities may be based on a wider misunderstanding of what they do and how much they cost. As a result the trust would not take much evidence of unpleasantnes Results of this study demonstrated the links between both types of transparency and trust and positive behavioral intentions of stakeholders. In addition, results supported earlier studies in which transparency was demonstrated to be a two part construct (Auger, 2010; Rawlins, 2009). Moreover, results of this study suggest that expectations of behavior may differ depending on organizational type, which may in turn explain va riances in level of trust. Using results of hypotheses tested here, the researcher constructed a model incorporating transparent or non transparent organizations, transparent or non transparent communicative response, and their effect on trust and positive behavioral

PAGE 175

175 intentions of stakeholders. Figure 5 1 illustrates the model, which combines results described in Figures 4 9 and 4 10 in the previous chapter. Given a crisis situation, transparent organizations that use transparent form of response achieve relatively high levels of trust and positive behavioral intentions. Non transparent organizations that that do not use a transparent form of response achieve low levels of trust and demonstrate a lack of positive behavioral intentions. Within the mixed transparency groups transparent organization that did not use transparent communication and non transparent organization that did use transparent communication results for trust and positive behavioral intentions land in the middle, neither high nor very l ow. Implications for Practice Public relations is a management function (J. E. Grunig & Hunt, 1984). Public relations is also a communicative function, building and maintaining relationships between an organization and its publics (Broom, 2010). And as d emonstrated in this and other studies (Rawlins, 2008, 2009; Yee & Yeung, 2010), transparency is closely linked with communication. As the Edelman Trust Barometer (Edelman, 2011a) noted, and conditional, logical, therefore, for transparency to be a function and responsibility of public relations and for public relations managers to be accountable for the extent and transparent quality of information and communication provided to stakeholders. Yet the extent to which the public relations manager within an organization can communicate transparently with stakeholders may be limited by his or her autonomy and level of management within the company.

PAGE 176

176 As Bivins (2006) argued, accountability should be commensurate with level of responsible person is relatively autonomous, or free to make decis ions associated with on the nature of the corporate structure, public relations practitioners within dwork is then laid for a decision making hierarchy that may gradually dilute the authority of public relations This lack of autonomy and adequate level of managerial rank is troubling given the increasing importance of transparency and its resultant effects on stakeholder trust in and positive behavioral intentions towards, organizations. Yet there is promise, for the increasing importance of transparency and its links to tru st and behavioral intentions provides compelling support for public relations autonomy and a seat at the upper centered leadership. Ethical leaders, in turn, create t ransparency. And transparency demands on 115). Moreover, the Edelman (2011) report highlighted the increasingly media savvy consumer, a consumer that communications professionals kno w best how to reach and communicate with effectively based on research, planning and evaluation. No longer is 6). As the report noted:

PAGE 177

177 The data portray a savvy consu mer who turns first to search engines to see what is available on the topic of interest, and who then seeks out traditional media to confirm or expand on what he or she has learned. (p. 6) Therefore, organizations of all types must create a communications approach that In this era of multiple media and instantaneous news, transparency is less of an option than a necessity for organizations that wish to remain viable. This study has demonstrat ed the importance of organizational and communicative transparency to the development of trust with stakeholders, and stakeholders represent the continued success or ultimate decline of organizations. It is the function of public relations to help organiz ations build and maintain relationships with their stakeholders, thereby positively organizational and communicative transparency and that does not grant public relations the autonomy to function at the highest levels of transparency are increasingly likely to become the next Toyota in a crisis. As noted in The Economist 2010): Toyota was lamentably slow to respond to the large number of incidents of defensiveness towards the outside world with exaggerated deference towards senior management is poorly equipped to identify and then deal with this kind of situation. (p. 69) Implications fo r Crisis Communication Strategy The organizational scenario used within this experiment involved a preventable crisis situation in which the organization in question was responsible for the deaths of a young child and an elderly person. A preventable cris is situation was chosen for the scenario because it is the type of crisis situation in which there is greatest attributions of crisis responsibility and therefore greatest reputational threat (Coombs, 2007a). Each

PAGE 178

178 of the eight treatment combinations in th e experiment received the same situation, yet each received either low or high treatments for organizational and communicative transparency. Results of the study demonstrated that both types of transparency affected extent of their positive behavioral intentions toward the organization. Those organizations that demonstrated attributes of organizational transparency such as sincerity, caring, competence, truthfulness, and flexibility and who also were forthcoming wit h information, accepted responsibility for the situation, and were welcoming of input from stakeholders following the onset of the crisis, achieved reasonably high levels of post crisis trust and behavioral intentions. Conversely, those that were perceive d as deceptive, inflexible, uncaring, and unwilling to communicate with stakeholders and who blamed others for the situation and provided little or incomplete information, were perceived as untrustworthy and were likely to report a lack of positive behavio ral outcomes following the crisis. Figure 5 1 illustrates the varying effects of both types of transparency on trust and positive behavioral intentions. Transparency has now been shown to have an effect on levels of stakeholder trust (timely, consistent, and active) had a greater effect on trust and relational commitmen t than choice of crisis communication strategy. Whereas crisis communication literature has in the past focused on matching appropriate crisis response strategy to the type of crisis, implications from this study suggest that form of response (transparent or non transparent) has a place in the research agenda and the practice of crisis communication management.

PAGE 179

179 Implications for Public Relations Theory The study reported here has several implications for development of theory in public relations. First, t ransparency is a relatively new construct in public relations and, as such, lacks testing and development. Among other factors, this study is noteworthy for initiating measurement of organizational transparency and trust, testing of which had not previous ly taken place. Moreover, the study demonstrated the significance of both organizational and communicative transparency on trust and positive behavioral intentions of stakeholders in a crisis situation. As such, the study confirms the two parts of the co nstruct (Auger, 2010; Rawlins, 2009), substantiates an earlier study that linked communicative transparency to trust (Rawlins, 2008), and extended understanding of transparency by testing its measurement scales on external stakeholders. Second, whereas c risis communication literature can be found in business and management, it is a public relations construct and its key theorist, Dr. W. T. Coombs, is a public relations scholar and teacher. This study advanced theory in crisis communication management by demonstrating the critical role of transparency to form of response. Third, the study of nonprofit organizations falls into many academic areas and it sing is a specialty function of public relations and it is also unique to charitable nonprofit organizations. Whereas other academic areas may claim the nonprofit sector for philosophical discussions of the purpose of the sector or similar, surely public relations should lay claim to the research agenda for communicative studies in the sector. There is a great deal of literature on the uniqueness of the nonprofit sector, yet there are few comparative studies that empirically test the implications of the s

PAGE 180

180 can be argued that not only is there is a place in the public relations research agenda for studies such as this, there is a need for such studies that increase understanding of the sector through comparative testing and analysis o f charitable nonprofit and other types of organizations. Moreover, as the nonprofit sector continues to grow, the need and demand for such studies and development of theory unique to the nonprofit sector may also grow. Fourth, trust is a central construct in both streams of organization public relationship research (Hon & J. E. Grunig, 1999; Ledingham & Bruning, 1998). Results of this study contribute to theory building in OPR by identifying the importance of transparency to reported levels of trust in orga nizations. As noted in Chapter 4, perceptions of organizational and communicative transparency had independent and organizations and for profit businesses. Moreov er, though Rawlins (2009) suggested that openness and trust were most logically tied to the organization public research agenda, results of this study indicate highly positive or negative impressions, with the exception of Blocks 3 and 4. Furt her stakeholder perceptions of and useful links for theory building in OPR. Fifth, this study advanced development of theory in public relations by substantiati ng the importance for public relations as a management function, with need

PAGE 181

181 for appropriately large autonomy and accountability. Finally, a comprehensive model incorporating organizational transparency, communicative transparency, trust, and behavioral int entions was developed. The model provides room for continued theory building in public relations wherein scholars can confirm, refine, expand or reject the model, increasing understanding of transparency and its effect on organizational relationships with stakeholders. Limitations It is the nature of research that there be limitations to a study. This study is no different and has several limitations relating to its method, sample, and manipulations. based upon the creation of artificiality to produce extremes in effect. Steps were taken within this study to lessen the artificiality and increase its generalizability, first by purchasing a panel from the general population of adults who use the Internet and second by designing the manipulation information so that they appeared to be real newspaper articles. Despite these steps, it is possible that some participants identified the fictitious nature of the newspaper articles which may have affected their results. Furthermore, though participants were remunerated by the panel company, completion rate was just about 60%, indicating that the people who completed the study may have shared characteristics that are unknown to the researcher and that may have affected results. Moreover, the mean age of participants was 59 and few participants were found from the under 40 age bracket. As such, the results of the study could be quite different with a younger population and should no t be generalized to all populations.

PAGE 182

182 Whereas one would hope that participants read the manipulations and considered the subsequent questions carefully before answering, it is possible that participant fatigue, lack of interest, or lack of understanding o f the study affected results. Data were checked for obvious disinterest, for example, choosing the same answer for every question, and reverse item questions were included within the study to try to overcome this issue, but some participants may be very g ood survey takers and vary their answers well enough to avoid detection, therefore, affecting results. To avoid issues of source credibility and attitude towards the company, a fictitious organization was created for this study; however, despite its fict ion, some participants may have prior attitudes toward water purification companies that affected their results. Moreover, the situation described in the experiment was set in a fictitious Louisiana town and it may be that some participants recognized the fiction, were uninterested in a situation far removed from their geographic location, or had negative attitudes towards Louisiana. No data were collected on geographic location of participants. Beyond method, sample, and manipulation, this study also has limitation in its design with respect to the choice of dependent variables. The study measured just one of the organization public relationship (OPR) management outcomes, trust. Developed by Hon and J. E. Grunig (1999), organizational public relationsh ip outcomes contribution to theory development in OPR is limited by its demonstration of the effect of organizational transparency and communicative transparency on trust, but not on the other three outcomes.

PAGE 183

183 Suggestions for Future Research Building on the last of these limitations, the first recommendation for future research is to extend the study of transparency to the other OPR outcomes control mutuality, satisfaction, and commitment. By exploring the relationship between transparency and these other outcomes, a greater and more comprehensive understanding of the importance and effect of transparency to organization public relationships can be developed. Models of the interaction among these constructs should then be developed and tested, and shared with practitioners, moving the theory into the field where it can be integrated into practice. Before moving to development and testing of a larger model encompassing all f our OPR variables, the researcher recommends testing the model illustrated in Figure 5 2. The appropriateness of extending this model to incorporate both constructs of transparency seems clear. Communicative transparency seeks to maintain positive relati onships and outcomes such as trust by reducing risk and uncertainty among stakeholders through accountability for actions, willingness to participate and interact with stakeholders, and provision of substantial information that is accurate, timely, and rel evant. Organizational transparency is founded on organizational behaviors that indicate integrity, respect for stakeholders, and openness to communication, in other mode l (Figure 2 1) expanding its scope by adding communicative transparency as a determinant of risk and calculated probability and organizational transparency as a determinant of trustworthiness. Based on these factors, communicative transparency is entered into the model as an input to both risk and calculated probability and organizational transparency is entered into the model as an input to trustworthiness.

PAGE 184

184 Furthermore, both the organizational and communicative transparency scales should be tested with survey method in a large population of external stakeholders. An earlier study conducted with internal stakeholders returned multiple scale components for each of the constructs (Rawlins, 2009). Conversely, this study conducted with experimental method on a smaller population of external stakeholders returned a singular component for organizational transparency and two components rather than four for communicative transparency. This may be attributable to the method or the size of the sample, or it may be the result of an external stakeholder population. In any case, the difference bears investigation. Moreover, the researcher suggests that research be conducted to refine the number of scale items for transparency. At present, organizational transparen cy includes 15 items to measure 3 factors and communicative transparency includes 25 items to measure 4 factors. Results of this study found many items to be confounded loading with lack of strength onto any one component and others to load with low weig ht. Perhaps additional research would return similar results, warranting a reduced scale for each of these constructs. Comparative studies of charitable nonprofit organizations and for profit businesses are rare, yet the perceived uniqueness and importanc e of the nonprofit sector allows it to function with significant societal benefits such as exemption from U.S. federal income tax. If the sector is as important and unique as its status suggests, then there should be increased comparative studies of the s ector and the business sector that substantiate or refute this claim.

PAGE 185

185 Finally, this study confirmed that form of crisis response has significant effect on perceptions of trust and behavioral intentions following crisis. As such additional exploration of t warranted and its place in situational crisis communication theory identified. Conclusion There are few studies developing and testing the construct of transparency (Bandsuch, et al., 2008; Rawlins, 2008; 2009) and there is, to the best of the profit and charitable nonprofit organizations (Handy, et al. 2010). Through use of a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial experimental method distributed to members of the general population of the United States who use the Internet, this study obtained empirical support for the levels of trust and behavioral intentions following crisis. Moreover, the terms clarify the two parts of the transparency construct identified by Rawlins (2009) and confirmed by Auger (2010). The study also provided comparative analysis of the effects of organizational and communicative transparency in two different types of organizations the charitable nonprofit and the for profit business. The results of comparative analysis found that, despite lack o f significant differences, perceptions of organizational transparency in charitable nonprofit organizations garnered higher levels of trust than that found for their for profit counterparts. Further, perceptions of non transparency resulted in lower level s of trust in the charitable organizations than the for profit businesses. In other words, charitable nonprofit organizations began higher when perceived to have the reputational

PAGE 186

186 traits of organizational transparency and fell further than the for profit b usinesses when they were perceived as lacking those traits. In a world of 24 7 communication, news, commentary, blogs, and chatter on social networks, organizations in crisis come under severe scrutiny. Though they may want to, they cannot hide from thi s hyper connected world. Results of this study demonstrated the impact of transparency on organizations in crisis. Those that were forthcoming, admitted their mistakes, provided detailed and relevant information and were perceived as caring, sincere and credible, maintained respect and reasonably high levels of trust given the situation. Conversely, given the same situation, those that chose to hide, that did not admit to their mistakes and were slow to or did not provide information and were perceived a s arrogant, uncaring, and incompetent, had very little respect and very low levels of trust. Transparency is an important and relatively new construct in public relations (Edelman, 2010; 2011; Rawlins, 2008; 2009). The implications for the importance of both organizational and communicative transparency span many boundaries from crisis communication management to development of organization public relationships to increased justification for public relations as a man agement function. This study has shown the significance of effect of organizational and communicative transparency on trust in both charitable nonprofit organizations and in for profit businesses but it is merely the beginning of exploration of the constr uct.

PAGE 187

187 Figure 5 crisis situations

PAGE 188

188 Figure 5 ositive behavioral intentions in non crisis situations

PAGE 189

189 APPENDIX A EXPERIMENTAL MANIPUL ATIONS Article 1: Organizational Transparency in a Nonprofit Organization VCWS to donate water purification system to town By Serena Hill Hills@independentadviser.com March 5, 2008 Vortex Clean Water Systems (VCWS), a nonprofit organization, has announced that Pollardine, Louisiana will be the recipient of their next charitable project under their mission to construct water purification systems in poorer areas of the globe. volunteer board of directors. Pollardine will receive a comprehensive stormwater runoff purification system designed to provide cleaner and safer drinking water for this small Southern Louisiana town that has been operating with an antiquated and potentially dangerous water system fo r years. about our situation. The town intended to update the water system by the end of the decade, or John Bellevue. This is the fir st time an American town has been targeted as most in need of Vortex Sudan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Funds for the project have been raised through charitable don ations to VCWS by individuals, corporations and foundations. local vol Construction of the project was slated to begin in September but has been delayed until concerns over the potential loss of parking spaces and business disruption have been addressed. n willing to listen to our concerns about potential disruption downtown and ord to lose VCWS has been sensitive to these concerns and is working with the local planning and police departments to develop plans that are the least disruptive to traffic, parking and businesses. Vortex Clean Water Systems was recently recognized as a lea der in water quality engineering. The international watchdog group, Clean Water for the World cited VCWS as #1 in their list of top 10 hydro class engineering standards and low cost construction that make cl ean water possible for the poorest in our

PAGE 190

190 More information about Vortex Clean Water Systems and how to donate can be found http://www.vortexwater.com To volunteer for the L ouisiana project, please contact local volunteer coordinator, Jan Richards, at Jan2134@gmail.com

PAGE 191

191 Figure A 1. Image of fictitious newspaper layout presented for article 1

PAGE 192

192 Article 2: Organizational Transparency in a For Profit Business VCWS wins bid to construct water purification system By Serena Hill Hills@independentadviser.com March 5, 2008 Town administrators have announced that the hydro engineering fir m, Vortex Clean Water Systems (VCWS) has been selected as the contractor for development of the engineering contractor to help improve the infrastructure of this smal l town. We know how badly the town was damaged by Carlton Clyde, president of the company. n delayed for years. The new, comprehensive stormwater runoff purification system has been designed to provide cleaner and safer drinking water for this small southern Louisiana town that has been operating with a potentially dangerous water system for ye ars. about our situation. The town intended to update the water system by the end of 2010 but after bid showed sensitivity to our financial situation and they have been open with us about the bottom Construction of the project was slated to begin in September but has been delayed until concern s over the potential loss of parking spaces and business disruption have been addressed. Spot, a popular VCWS has been sensitive to these concerns and is working with the local planning and police departments to develop plans t hat are the least disruptive to traffic, parking and businesses. engineering services to projects world wide, most recently in Zambia, the Sudan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. Their expertise was recently recognized by the international watchdog group, Clean Water for the World who cited VCWS as #1 in their list of top 10 hydro class engineering standards and low cost construction that make clean water possible for the poorest website at http://www.vortexwater.com

PAGE 193

193 Figure A 2. Image of fictitious newspaper layout presented for article 2

PAGE 194

194 Article 3: Communicative Transparency in a Nonprofit Organization NCWS aiding inquiries to determine cause of deaths By Jeremy Scott Scottj@independentadviser.com August 13, 2010 Officials from the nonprofit organization, Vortex Clean Water Systems of the art water purification system were not those recommended in the engineering specifications. According to infor mation released today, employees within the nonprofit organization substituted less expensive filters without engineering approval and are alleged to have used the savings for their own purposes. Recent deaths of residents, Thomas Miller, aged 4, and Mile na Cote, 87, as well as a spate of increased intestinal illness, last week led authorities to question the effectiveness of the system and ask for water quality verification. had a more comprehensive hiring process that might have identified their shortcomings and prevented directors. hical and deceptive behavior, and our heartfelt sympathy goes out to the Miller and Cote families and to all those who are ill. We want you to know that we will be doing everything within our power to get you the information that you need so that we can f of simple, but state of the art water purification systems in poorer areas of the globe. Prior projects have taken place successf ully in Zambia, the Sudan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. The company has been recognized for its willingness to listen to and involve local residents in the planning for construction of their plants, including provision of translators for meetings and transla ted engineering materials. In March of 2008, it was announced that Pollardine would be the first American town to receive a water purification system from VCWS. Funded and constructed through donations to VCWS and volunteer labor, the project began in N ovember 2008 and came on line in June of this year. Environmental Protection those specified and VCWS is funding on According to Mayhew, VCWS has been responsive to criticisms of the hiring process that led to employ ment for the employees allegedly responsible for the crisis and the lack of internal controls that may have identified the change in filters. asking for feedback about VCWS has also been trying to make it easy for people of Pollardine to find the information they need. According to Clyde, additional employees have been hired to update the website on an hourly basis a nd to answer the increased number of telephone calls. get the information that they need when they need it, or to give them someone to listen to their complaints, if the An open forum to discuss resident concerns will be held Thursday, in Town Hall Auditorium beginning at 7 p.m. Mayor Bellevue, members of the town council, VCWS president

PAGE 195

195 Carlton Clyde, Donald Mayhew of the Lousiana DEP, and independen t water quality experts will be on hand to discuss the status of the system and answer questions and concerns. Up to http://Pollardine.gov and on http://vortexwater.com

PAGE 196

196 Figure A 3. Image of fictitious newspaper layout presented for article 3

PAGE 197

197 Article 4: Communicative Transparency in a For Profit Business VCWS aiding inquiries to determine cause of deaths By Jeremy Scott Scottj@independentadviser.com August 13, 2010 Officials from the hydro engineering firm, Vortex Clean Water Systems (VCWS) have confirmed that filters used in building Pollardine, of the art water purification system were not those recommended in the engineering specifications. According to information released today, employees within the nonprofit organization substituted less expensive filters without engine ering approval and are alleged to have used the savings for their own purposes. Recent deaths of residents, Thomas Miller, aged 4, and Milena Cote, 87, as well as a spate of increased intestinal illness, last week led authorities to question the effective ness of the system and ask for water quality verification. more comprehensive hiring process that might have identified their shortcomings and prevented this sad situati our heartfelt sympathy goes out to the Miller and Cote families and to all those who are ill. We want you to know that we will be doing everything within our power to get you the information Established in 1985, VCWS provides safe water through the construction of simple, but state of the art water purif ication systems in poorer areas of the globe. Prior projects have taken place successfully in Zambia, the Sudan, Bangladesh, and Pakistan. The company has been recognized for its willingness to listen to and involve local residents in the planning for co nstruction of their plants, including provision of translators for meetings and translated engineering materials. the names of third party experts to examine and verify those specified and VCWS is funding on According to Mayhew, VCWS has been r esponsive to criticisms of the hiring process that led to employment for the employees allegedly responsible for the crisis and the lack of internal controls that may have identified the change in filters. have already in this short time, been VCWS has also been trying to make it easy for people of Pollardine to find the information they need. According to Clyde, additional empl oyees have been hired to update the website on an hourly basis and to answer the increased number of telephone calls. get the information that they need when they need i t, or to give them someone to listen to their An open forum to discuss resident concerns will be held Thursday, in Town Hall Auditorium beginning at 7 p.m. Mayor Bellevue, members of the town council, VCWS president Carlton Clyde, Donald Mayhew of the Lousiana DEP, and independent water quality experts will be on hand to discuss the status of the system and answer questions and concerns. Up to http://Pollardine.gov and on http://vortexwater.com

PAGE 198

198 Figure A 4. Image of fictitious newspaper layout presented for article 4

PAGE 199

199 Article 5: Non Transparent Nonprofit Organization Criti By Serena Hill Hills@independent_adviser.com March 5, 2008 Members of the Town Council last night, expressed concern over the proposed new water purification pro ject. Nonprofit organization, Vortex Clean Water Systems (VCWS) announced last week in national and international press, that Pollardine would be the recipient of their next charitable project under their mission to construct water purification systems in poorer areas of the globe. Yet, according to council member Rachel Kapinski, they did not notify the town before the announcement. and inconsistent. A year ago they sent a letter saying they were no longer looking at Pollardine and s receive a state of the art water purification about their feelings and such Weighing in on the mat ter, Mayor John Bellevue, acknowledged the town would be grateful for the system, but only if VCWS could provide a reliable and safe product. some complaints about their Bellevue added that the town will certainly m ove forward with plans for the proposed system but that nothing will be constructed without proper due diligence. Certainly our system is antiquated and the town does not have the resources to adequately update and repair it. That being said, we are not at all sure that VCWS is reliable or competent At this point we are conce rned that they will be unable to provide us with a safe and sustainable

PAGE 200

200 Figure A 5. Image of fictitious newspaper layout presented for article 5

PAGE 201

201 Article 6: Non Transparent For Profit Business Critics concerned by proposed water project By Serena Hill Hills@independent_adviser.com March 5, 2008 Members of the Town Council last night expressed concern over the proposed new water purification project. Hydro engineering firm, Vortex Clean Water Systems (VCWS) process. Yet, according to council member Rachel Kapinski, not everyone on the council is pleased with the decision. sent a representative to presen schedul ed and re scheduled at least five times and we never seem to be able to talk to the Earlier today, VCWS company president, Carlton Clyde, expressed surprise and llowed the procedures for the RFP down to the letter and we as l about their feelings and such Weighing in on the matter, Mayor John Bellevue, acknowl edged that the RFP could have asked for more information. a credible comp Bellevue added that the town will certainly move forward with plans for the proposed system but that nothing will be constructe d without proper due diligence. question the truthfulness of their RFP. At t his point we are concerned that they will be unable to

PAGE 202

202 Figure A 6. Image of fictitious newspaper layout presented for article 6

PAGE 203

203 Article 7: Non Transparent Communication in a Nonprofit Organization Nonprofit group hindering end to water quality crisis By Jeremy Scott Scottj@independent_adviser.com August 13, 2010 Officials from the nonpr ofit organization, Vortex Clean Water Systems (VCWS) have been slow to respond to Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) requests for information regarding the engineering specifications and early water quality reports for fication system. Recent deaths of residents, Thomas Miller, aged 4, and Milena Cote, 87, as well as a spate of increased intestinal illness, last week led authorities to question the effectiveness of the system and ask for water quality verification. believe the problem stems from the filters used in the system but VCWS refuses to provide updated specifications that could be compared to industry standards. They keep giving us incomplete information that is filled with jargon and inaccuracies and very difficult to According to town officials, VCWS is denying any responsibility for the problem and blames manufacturers of the screens used in construction. o accept blame that belongs on the manufacturers of the screens. It is obvious to us that the screens were faulty, not the Despite denying responsibility, VCWS refus es to provide detailed information on the quality of the screening system and has not asked for feedback from the DEP on how to improve the system to prevent similar crisis situations. ormation on the screens Residents have been told not to use town water until the issue is resolved. Hotels in neighboring Harrisville and Baton Rouge, as well as the YMCA, have volunteered use of rooms for showering free of charge to Po llardine residents until the crisis has passed. Truckloads of bottled water have been purchased by the town and distributed to City Hall, local schools, fire and police stations. of this town He added that the town had asked VCWS for financial support to offset the cost of the crisis and been refused. When questioned about the lack of financial support for the crisis, Clyde responded with anger. Established in 1985, VCWS constructs simple, but state of the art water purification systems in poorer areas of the globe. In March of 2008, it was announced that VCWS would donate a state of the art water treatment system to Pollardine. Construction began in November 2008 and the system came on line in June of this year. Up to date information on the crisis and the names and addresses of hotels participating in the shower scheme, ca http://Pollardine.gov

PAGE 204

204 Figure A 7. Image of fictitious newspaper layout presented for article 7

PAGE 205

205 Article 8: Non Transparent Communication in a For Profit Business VCWS hindering en d to water quality crisis By Jeremy Scott Scottj@independent_adviser.com August 13, 2010 Officials from the hydro engineering company, Vortex Clean Water Systems (VCWS) have been slow to respond to Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) requests for information regarding the engineering specifications and early water quality reports for and Milena Co te, 87, as well as a spate of increased intestinal illness, last week led authorities to question the effectiveness of the system and ask for water quality verification. provide updated specifications that could be compared to industry standards. They keep giving us incomplete information that is filled with jargon and inaccuracies and very difficult to According to town offic ials, VCWS is denying any responsibility for the problem and blames manufacturers of the screens used in construction. manufacturers of the screens. It is obvious to us that the screens were faulty, not the Despite denying responsibility, VCWS refuses to provide detailed information on the quality of the screening system and has not asked for feedback from the D EP on how to improve the system to prevent similar crisis situations. l Residents have been told not to use town water until the issue is resolv ed. Hotels in neighboring Harrisville and Baton Rouge, as well as the YMCA, have volunteered use of rooms for showering free of charge to Pollardine residents until the crisis has passed. Truckloads of bottled water have been purchased by the town and di stributed to City Hall, local schools, fire and police stations. He ad ded that the town had asked VCWS for financial support to offset the cost of the crisis and been refused. When questioned about the lack of financial support for the crisis, Clyde responded with anger. Established in 1985, VCWS constructs simple but state of the art water purification systems in poorer areas of the globe. In March of 2008, it was announced that VCWS would construct a state of the art water treatment system in Pollardine. Construction began in November 2008 and the system came on line in June of this year. Up to date information on the crisis and the names and addresses of hotels participating in the shower http://Pollardine.gov

PAGE 206

206 Figure A 8. Image of fictitious newspaper layout presented for article 8

PAGE 207

207 APPENDIX B PERMISSION FOR USE O F PHOTOS File: Culvert under the A58 Halifax Rd, Rishworth Moor geograph.org.uk 93539.jpg From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository Description English: Culvert under the A58 Halifax Rd, Rishworth Moor. This culvert takes the run off from Knave Holes Hill under the A58 into Rag Sapling Clough, one of the many moorland streams draining into Baitings Reservoir. Date 20 December 2005 Source Fro m geograph.org.uk Author michael ely Permission ( Reusing this file ) This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike 2.0 Generic license. Attribution: michael ely Licensing You are free: to share to copy, distribute and transmit the work to remix to adapt the work Under the following conditions: attribution You must att ribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). share alike If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only u nder the same or similar license to this one.

PAGE 208

208 File: Downey City Hall.jpg From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository Description Personal Photo of Downey's City Hall built in 1984 and located in the Downey Civic Center on Brookshire Avenue and 2nd street. Released to the public domain. Date 2007 05 04 (original upload date) Source Originally from en.wikipedia ; description page is/was here Author Original uploader was Rafajs77 at en.wikipedia Permission ( Reusing this file ) Releas ed into the public domain (by the author).

PAGE 209

209 File: Fine Bubble Retrievable Grid.jpg From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository Description English: Fine Bubble Retrievable Grid System. Courtesy of Environmental Dynamics Inc. Date 19 May 2010 Source Own work Author C Tharp Permission ( Reusing this file ) See below. I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses : Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.2 o r any later version published by the Free Software Foundation ; with no Invariant Sections, no Front Cover Texts, and no Back Cover Texts. A copy of th e license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License

PAGE 210

210 File: Klaerwerk emschermuendung.jpg From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository Description Klrwerk Emschermndung Date March 2008 Source Own work Author Tbachner Permission ( Reusing this file ) See below. Licensing I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this doc ument under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation ; with no Invariant Sections, no Front Cover Texts, and no Back Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License

PAGE 211

211 File: Runoff torbidity.jpg From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository Description Turb id rain water runoff crashing against a rock at McKinney Falls State Park, Texas, United States. Date 31 March 2007 Source 2007 Larry D. Moore Author Photograph created by Larry D. Moore ( Nv8200p on en.wikipedia ) using a Kodak EasyShare P880 camera. Permission ( Reusing this file ) Attribution Specification: For any reuse or distribution of this image, please attribute with at least the photographer's name Larry D. Moore along with the license inf ormation (I recommend a Creative Commons (CC) license) in a format of your choosing. Examples: (CC) Larry D. Moore or GFDL photo by Larry D. Moore or Image by Larry D. Moore, used under a Creative Commons ShareAlike License Please provide a link back to t his page if at all possible. Licensing Nv8200p the copyright holder of this work, hereby publishes it under the following license Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation ; with no Invariant Sections, no Front Cover Texts, and no Back Cover Texts. A copy of the license is included in the section entitled GNU Free Documentation License

PAGE 212

212 File: Runoff of soil & fertilizer.jpg From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository Description English: View of runoff also called nonpoint source pollution from a farm field in Iowa during a rain storm. Topsoil as well as farm fertilizers and other potential pollutants run off unprotected farm fields when heavy rains occur. Deutsch: Wassererosion in Maisfeld Date 1999 Source U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Author Lynn Betts Permission ( Reusing this file ) Permission Photo no. NRCSIA99129 This image is a work of the Natural Resources Conservation Service part of the United States Department of Agriculture taken or made during the course of an employee's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal govern ment the image is in the public domain

PAGE 213

213 APPENDIX C INFORMED CONSENT PRO TOCOL Protocol Title: An experimental analysis of the effect of transparency on organizations. Please read this consent document carefully before you decide to participate in this study. Age of participant: I am 18 years or older: Agree Disagree Purpose of the research study: What you will be asked to do in the study: You will be asked to read two newspaper articles and then to give your opinion on a ser ies of questions. Some of the questions will ask you to decide where you think the organization belongs between two opposite words. Other questions will ask you to answer how strongly you agree or disagree on a scale of 1 to 7. Time required: Approxim ately 20 minutes Risks and Benefits: We do not anticipate any risks or benefits to you as a result of participation. Compensation: According to the panel recruitment company, participants will be compensated through cash paid directly to respondents th rough PayPal, provided the necessary incentive threshold has been reached. Note: panel members must participate in several surveys before availing of the first reward threshold. Confidentiality: Participants provide their e mail addresses to ensure that t here are no duplicate submissions. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law. Your information will be assigned a code number and your e mail address will not be shared, sold or otherwise used except in the specific research id entified here. Your name, e mail address or other identifying information will not be used in any report. Voluntary participation: Your participation in this study is completely voluntary. There is no penalty for not participating. Right to withdraw fro m the study: You have the right to withdraw from the study at anytime without consequence.

PAGE 214

214 Whom to contact if you have questions about the study: Giselle A. Auger, Doctoral Candidate, Dept. of Public Relations, Weimer Hall G038, phone (352) 846 1107. Whom to contact about your rights as a research participant in the study: IRB02 Office, Box 112250, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611 2250; phone 392 0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participa te in the survey. Participant: ___________________________________________ Date: _________________ Principal Investigator: ___________________________________ Date: _________________ Approved by University of Florida Institutional Review Board 02 Protocol # 2010 U 1172 For Use Through 02 07 2012

PAGE 215

215 APPENDIX D SURVEY Are you at least 18 years old? Yes No Informed Consent: I voluntarily consent to participate in the study. I do not wish to participate in the study. Have you heard of Vortex Systems before today? Yes No Please write a sentence describing Vortex Systems. Having read the previous news articles, please indicate where you believe VORTEX SYSTEMS belongs within the scales below: Deceptive O O O O O O O Truthful Insincere O O O O O O O Sincere Impersonal O O O O O O O Personal Unethical O O O O O O O Ethical Insensitive O O O O O O O Sensitive Closed O O O O O O O Open Unintelligent O O O O O O O Intelligent Inflexible O O O O O O O Flexible Not credible O O O O O O O Credible Unreliable O O O O O O O Reliable Incompetent O O O O O O O Competent Unwilling to listen O O O O O O O Willing to listen Uncaring O O O O O O O Caring Inconsistent O O O O O O O Consistent Arrogant O O O O O O O Humble Please indicate the exte nt to which you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding VORTEX SYSTEMS: Strongly Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree Agree Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree nor Disagree Agree Agree Is open to criticism by people like me. O O O O O O O Provides accurate information to people like me. O O O O O O O Provides information that can be compared to previous performance. O O O O O O O Asks the opinions of people

PAGE 216

216 Strongly Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree Agree Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree nor Disagree Agree Agree like me before making decisions. O O O O O O O Often leaves out important details in the information it provides to people like me. O O O O O O O Provides information that can be compared to industry standards. O O O O O O O Makes it easy to find the inform ation people like me need. O O O O O O O Provides information that could be verified by an outside source, like an auditor. O O O O O O O Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding VORTEX SYSTEMS: Strongly Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree Ag ree Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree nor Disagree Agree Agree Asks for feedback from people like me about the quality of its information. O O O O O O O Is forthcoming with information that might be damaging to the organization. O O O O O O O Only discloses inform ation when it is required. O O O O O O O Provides information that is reliable. O O O O O O O Provides detailed information to people like me. O O O O O O O Provides information that is easy for people like me to understand. O O O O O O O Provides information to people like me in language that is clear. O O O O O O O Is slow to provide information to people like me. O O O O O O O Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding VORTEX SYSTEMS: Strongly Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree Agree Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree nor Disagree Agree Agree Freely admits when it has made mistakes. O O O O O O O

PAGE 217

217 Strongly Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree Agree Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree nor Disagree Agree Agree Provides information that is complete. O O O O O O O Provides information that is full of jargon and technical language that is confusing to people like me. O O O O O O O Takes the time with people like me to understand who we are and what we need. O O O O O O O Involves people lik e me to help identify the information I need. O O O O O O O Provides information that is intentionally written in a way to make it difficult to understand. O O O O O O O Presents more than one side of controversial issues. O O O O O O O Provides information that is relevant to people like me. O O O O O O O Blames outside factors that may have contributed to the outcome when reporting bad news. O O O O O O O Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding VORTEX SYSTEMS: Strongly Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree Agree Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree nor Disa gree Agree Agree I believe this organization takes the opinions of people like me into account when making decisions. O O O O O O O This organization is known to be successful at the things it tries to do. O O O O O O O I think it is important to watch this organization closely so that it does not take advantage of people like me. O O O O O O O Whenever this organization makes a decision I know it will be concerned about people like me. O O O O O O O So und principles seem to guide the behavior of this organization. O O O O O O O organization make decisions for people like me. O O O O O O O

PAGE 218

218 Strongly Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree Agree Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree nor Disa gree Agree Agree The organization treats people like me fairly and justly. O O O O O O O This organization is interested in the well being of people like me, not just i tself. O O O O O O O Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding VORTEX SYSTEMS: Strongly Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree Agree Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree nor Disagree Agree Agree This organization does not mislead people like me. O O O O O O O This organization has the ability to accomplish what it says it will do. O O O O O O O I trust the organization to take care of people like me. O O O O O O O I feel very confident about the skills of this organization. O O O O O O O Th e organization can be relied on to keep its promises. O O O O O O O Please indicate the extent to which you agree or disagree with the following statements regarding VORTEX SYSTEMS: Strongly Somewhat Disagree Neither Agree Agree Somewhat Strongly Disagree Disagree nor Disagree Agree Agree I would support my city or Sy stems products for stormwater management by voting in favor of the purchase in the next election. O O O O O O O I would discourage friends and relatives from voting in favor of the purchase of Vortex Systems products in the next election. O O O O O O O I would say positive things about Vortex Systems to other people. O O O O O O O

PAGE 219

219 Please write your age _________________. Please indicate your gender: Male Female Debriefing To the best of the researcher's knowledge there is no Pollardine, Louisiana and no company called Vortex Clean Water Systems (VCWS). Further, all people, places, companies and situations described herein are completely fictitious and are not meant to rese mble any real person, place, company or situation. The articles were created to measure the effect of transparency on public perception. If you feel people, places, companies or situations have been compromised by this fiction, please notify the principl e researcher at: gauger@ufl.edu

PAGE 220

220 REFERENCES Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (2009). Statistical methods for the social sciences [4 th edition]. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall Arenson, K. W. (1995, April 4). Former United Way chief guilty in theft of more than $600,000. The New York Times Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/1995/04 /04/us/former united way chief guilty in theft of more than600000.html?scp=2&sq=&st=nyt Aronson, E., Ellsworth, P. C., Carlsmith, J. M., & Gonzales, M. H. (1990). Methods of research in social psychology. NY: McGraw Hill Ashwell, B. (2010, July 5). B udget transparency on the web. St Petersburg Times (Florida), p.11A, Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/budget transparency on the web/110663 3 Auger, G. A. (2009). Building credibility: Developing transparency in public relations. Paper presented to the Association of Researchers in Journalism and Mass Communication, annual convention, Boston, MA. Auger, G. A. (2010). When did transparency appear in PR and what does it mean: A historical analysis of the word and its contexts. Paper presented to the Association of Researchers in Journalism and Mass Communication, annual convention, Denver, CO. Axtman, K., & Scherer, R. (2002, February 4). Enron lapses and corporate ethics: New questions surface about corporate leaders as Kenneth Lay testifies before Congress today. The Christian Science Monitor Retrieved from http://www.c smonitor.com/2002/0204/p01s01 ussc.html Ball, C. (2009). What is transparency? Public Integrity, 11 (4), 293 307. Bandsuch, M., Pate, L., & Thies, J. (2008). Rebuilding stakeholder trust in business: An examination of principle centered leadership and organizational transparency in corporate governance. Business and Society Review, 113 (1), 99 127. Baucus, M. (Chairman, US Senate Committee on Finance). (2010, September 29). Baucus calls on IRS to investigate use of tax exempt groups for political act ivity. United States Senate Committee on Finance. Retrieved from: http://finance.senate.gov/newsroom/chairman/release/?id=9bc04792 1ead 4668 a512 89 443f342312 Bekkers, R. (2003). Trust, accreditation, and philanthropy in the Netherlands. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 32 (4), 596 615.

PAGE 221

221 Ben Ner, A., & Putterman, L. (2009). Trust, communication and contracts: An experiment. Journal of Econ omic Behavior & Organization, 70 (1 2), 106 121. Benoit, W. L. (1997). Image repair discourse and crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 23 (2), 177 186. National Post (Canada), p. FP3. Bhattacharya, R., Devinney, T. A., & Pillutla, M. M. (1998). A formal model of trust based on outcomes. Academy of Management Review, 2 (3), 459 472. Bivins, T. H. (2006). Responsibility and accountability. In K. Fitzpatrick, & C. Bronstein (Eds.), Eth ics in public relations: responsible advocacy (pp. 19 38). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. restoration campaign. Public Relations Review, 28 (4), 379 392. BP should pay for squandering trust. [Editorial]. (2010, June 21). The Dallas Morning News retrieved from http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/editoria ls/20100621 Editorial BP should pay for 2342.ece Brody, E. (2002). Accountability and public trust. In L. M. Salamon (Ed.), The state of nonprofit America, (pp. 471 498). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press Broom, G. M. (2010). Cutlip & Cente (10 th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Brown, T. J., Barry, T. E., Dacin, P. A., & Gunst, R. F. (2005). Spreading the word: of mouth intentions and behavio rs in a retailing context. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33 (2), 123 138. Bruning, S. D. (2002). Relationship building as a retention strategy: Linking relationship attitudes and satisfaction evaluations to behavioral outcomes. Public Rel ations Review, 28 (1), 39 48. Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics: Development of a multi dimensional organization public relationship scale. Public Relations Review, 25 (2), 157 170. Bruning, S. D., & Galloway, T. (2003). Expanding the organization public relationship` scale: exploring the role that structural and personal commitment play in organization public relationships. Public Relations Review, 29 (3), 309 319.

PAGE 222

222 Bruning, S. D., Castle, J. D., & Schrepfer, E. (2004). Building relationships between organizations and publics: Examining the linkage between organization public relationships, evaluations of satisfaction, and behavioral intent. Communication Studies, 5 (3), 435 446. Bruning, S. D., DeMiglio, P. A., & Embry, K. (2006). Mutual benefit as outcome indicator: Factors influencing perceptions of benefit in organization public relationships. Public Relations Review, 32 (1), 33 40. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company Christensen, L. T. (2002). Corporate communication: The challenge of transparency. Corporate Communications: An International Journal, 7 (3), 162 168. Coombs, W. T. (1998). An analytic framework for crisis situations: Better responses from a better understanding of the situation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10 (3), 177 191. Coombs, W. T. (2004). Impact of past crises on current crisis communications: Insights from situation crisis communications theory, Journal of Business Communication, 41 (3), 265 289. Coombs, W. T. (2006). The protective powers of crisis response strategies: Managing reputational assets during a crisis. Journal of Promotion Manage ment, 12 (3/4), 241 260. Coombs, W. T. (2007a). Attribution theory as a guide for post crisis communication research. Public Relations Review, 33 (2), 135 139. Coombs, W. T. (2007b). Ongoing crisis communication: Planning, managing, and responding (2 nd ed.). Los Angeles: Sage Publications Coombs, W. T. (2007c). Protecting organization reputations during a crisis: the development and application of situational crisis communication theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10 (3), 163 176. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (1996). Communication 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. (2001). An extended examination of the crisis situ ations: A fusion of the relational management and symbolic approaches. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13 (4), 321 340.

PAGE 223

223 Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2008). Comparing apology to equivalent crisis and value in crisis communication. Public Relations Review, 34 (3), 252 257. Cortina, J. M., (2003). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78 (1), 98 104. Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16( 3), 297 334. Czerwinski, S. J. (2007). Nonprofit sector: Increasing numbers and key role in delivering federal services. United States Government Accountability Office (GAO 07 1084T): Testimon y before the Subcommittee on Oversight, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. Easy to lose. [Editorial]. ( 2004, January 24). The Economist s pecial section: 14 14. Echo Research and International Business Leaders Forum (2010). A world in trust: Leadership and corporate responsibility New York: Echo Research. Edelman (2006). 2006 Annual Edelman Trust Barometer Retrieved from http://www.edelman.com/image/insights/content/FullSupplement.pdf Edelman (2010a). 2010 Annual Edelman Tru st Barometer Retrieved from http://www.edelman.com/trust/2010/ in repairing faith [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.edelman.com/trust/2010/docs/2010_Financial_Services_US_Trust_R elease.pdf Edelman (2011). 2011 Annual Edelman Trust Barometer Retrieved from http://www.edelman.com/trust/2011/ Faith, hope and charities. [Editorial]. (2010, November 11). The Economist Retrieved from http://www.economist.com/node/17461445?story_id=17461445 Federal spill effort needs more focus. [Editorial]. (2010, June 14). St Petersburg Times p. 12. Retrieved from http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/editorials/federal spill effort needs more focus/1101812 Friedman, M. (1970, September 13). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 33, 122 126.

PAGE 224

224 Furman, P. (2010, June 12). Yet another BP mess. Daily News (NY), p. 32. Retrieved July 6, 2010 from the LexisNexis database. Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and commitment i n customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63 (2), 70 87. Getting the cow out of the ditch. [Schumpeter Column]. (2010, February 13) The Economist 69 69. alp ha reliability coefficient for likert type scales. In 2003 Midwest Research to Practice Conference in Adult, Continuing, and Community Education Columbus, OH, 82 88. Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H. (2000). Antecedents of relationships and outcomes. In Ledingham, J. A. & Bruning, S. D., (Eds.). (2000). Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relati ons (pp. 23 53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Ehling, W. P. (1992). What is an effective organization? In J. E. Grunig, (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 616 638). Hillsda le, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Handy, F. (2000). How we beg: The analysis of direct mail appeals. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29 (3), 439 454. Handy, F., Seto, S., Wakaruk, A., Mersey, B., Mejia, A., & Copeland, L. (2010). The discerning consumer: Is nonprofit status a factor? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39 (2), 866 883. Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relatio ns Hong, S. Y., & Yang, S U. (2009). Effects of reputation, relational satisfaction, and customer company identification on positive word of mouth intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21 (4), 381 403. Huang, Y. H. (1997). Public relations s trategies, relational outcomes, and conflict management strategies Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.

PAGE 225

225 Huang, Y. H. (2001). OPRA: A cross cultural, multiple item scale for measuring organization public relationship s. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13 (1), 61 90. Huang, Y. H. (2008). Trust and relational commitment in corporate crises: the effects of crisis communicative strategy and form of crisis response. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20 (3), 297 327. Ingenhoff, D., & Sommer, K. (2010). Trust in companies and in CEOs: A comparative study of the main influences. Journal of Business Ethics, 95 (3), 339 355. Internal Revenue Service (2010, March). Data book, 2009 Publication 55B. Washington, DC: Author Jahansoozi, J. (2007). Organization public relationships: An exploration of the Sundre Petroleum Operators Group. Public Relations Review, 3 (4), 398 406. Jeavons, T. H. (2001). Ethics in nonprofit management. In J. S. Ott (Ed.), Understan ding nonprofit organizations: Governance, leadership and management (pp. 108 119), Boulder, CO: Westview Press Jones, K. (1996). Trust as an affective attitude. Ethics, 107 (1), 4 25. Jonker, C. M., & Treur, J. (1999). Formal analysis of models for th e dynamics of trust based on experience. In F. J. Garijo, & M. Bowman (Eds.), Proceedings of MAAMAW'99: Multi agent system engineering. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Karlberg, M. (1996). Remembering the public in public relations research: From theoretica l to operational symmetry. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8 (4), 263 278. Kearns, K. P. (1996). Managing for accountability. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass Kearns, K. P. (2001). Accountability concepts and controversies. In J. S. Ott (Ed.), Understanding nonprofit organizations: Governance, leadership and management (pp. 352 358), Boulder, CO: Westview Press Kelly, K. S. (1998). Effective fund raising management. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Kelly, K. S. (2008). Fundraising. I n W. Donsbach (Ed.), The International Encyclopedia of Communication (pp. 1914 1917). Malden, MA: Blackwell Kent, M. L., & Taylor, M. (2002). Towards a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review 28 21 37.

PAGE 226

226 Ki, E J., & Shin, J H. (2006). Status of organization public relationship research from an analysis of published articles, 1985 2004. Public Relations Review, 32 (2), 194 195. Ki, E J., & Hon, L. C. (2007). Testing the linkages among the organization public relationship and a ttitude and behavioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19 (1), 1 23. Knickerbocker, B. (2010, May 22). Obama moves to take control of BP Gulf oil spill. The Christian Science Monitor, retrieved from http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2010/0522/Obama moves to take political control of BP Gulf oil spill Koster, M. C., & Politis Norton, H. (2004). Crisis management strategies. Drug Safety, 27 (8), 603 608. Ledingham, J. A. (2001). Government community relationships: extending the relational theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 27 (3), 285 295. Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an organization public relationship. Public Relations Review, 24 (1), 55 65. Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D., (Eds.). (2000). Public relations as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Ledingham, J. A., Bruning, S. D., Thomlison, J. A., & Lesko, C. (1997). The applicability of interpersonal relationship dimensions to an organizational context: Toward a theory of relational loyalty. Academy of Managerial Communications Journal, 1 23 43. Lee, B. K. (2004). Audience oriented approach to crisis communication: A study of Hong K Communication Research, 31( 5), 600 618. Li, F., & Betts, S. C. (2004). Between expectation and behavioral intent: A model of trust. Journal of Organizational Culture, Communications, and Conflict. 8 (2), 1 12. Mattila, A. S. (2007). How to handle PR disasters? An examination of the impact of communication response type and failure attributions on consumer perceptions. Journal of Services Marketing, 23 (4), 211 218.

PAGE 227

227 Menon, K. U., & Goh, K. T. (20 05). Transparency and trust: Risk communications and the Singapore experience in managing SARS. Journal of Communication Management, 9 (4), 375 383. Mertler, C. A., & Vannatta, R. A. (2010). Advanced and multivariate statistical methods: Practical applic ation and interpretation (4 th Ed.). Glendale, CA: Pyrczak Publishing Mitroff, I. I., & Anagnos, G. (2001). Managing crises before they happen New York: American Management Association Mount, J. (1996). Why donors give. Nonprofit Management & Leade rship, 7 (1), 3 14. Pasquier, M., & Villeneuve, J P. (2007). Organizational barriers to transparency: A typology and analysis of organizational behavior tending to prevent or restrict access to information. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 73 (1), 147 162. Peyrot, M., & Van Doren, D. (1994). Effect of a class action suit on consumer repurchase intentions. Journal of Consumer Affairs, 28 (2), 361 379. Rawlins, B. (2008). Measuring the relationship between organizational transpare ncy and trust. Public Relations Journal, 2 (2), 425 439. Rawlins, B. (2009). Give the emperor a mirror: Toward developing a stakeholder measurement of organizational transparency. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21 (1), 71 99. Rogoff, K. (2010, J une 2). Technology, complexity, economy, catastrophe, The Globe and Mail (Canada), p. A19. Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/technology complexity economy catastrophe/article1588565/ The New York Times Retrieved from http://nytimes.com/2002/07/22/us/worldcom s collapse the overview worldcom files for bankruptcy largest us case.html?pagewanted=2 Salamon, L. M. (2 003). The resilient sector: The state pf nonprofit America Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press perspective. Journal of Management Development, 25 (10), 1018 1020

PAGE 228

228 Sargeant, A., & Lee, S. (2004). Donor trust and relationship commitment in the U.K. charity sector: The impact on behavior. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33 (2), 185 202. Snider, J. H., & The Washington Post, p. C05. Retrieved July 6, 2010 from the LexisNexis database. Stephenson, M. Jr., & Chaves, E. (2006). The Nature Conservancy, the press, and accountability. Nonprofit a nd Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35 (3), 345 366. Tampere, K. (2008). Stakeholder thinking and a pedagogical approach in public relations processes: Experience from transition societies. Journal of Public Relations Research, 20 (1), 71 93. Taylor, M. (2009 ). Protocol journalism as a framework for understanding public relations media relationships in Kosovo. Public Relations Review, 35 (1), 23 30. Taylor, M., & Kent, M. L. (2007). Taxonomy of mediated crisis responses. Public Relations Review, 33 (2), 140 146. Toyoda, A. [Commentary]. (2010, February 9). At Toyota, working to regain trust. The Washington Post A17 A17. Trochim, W. M. K. (2001). The research methods knowledge base [2 nd edition]. Cincinnati, OH: Atomicdogpublishing.com United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). (2002). Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002 Retrieved from http://www.sec.gov/about/laws.shtml United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (2006, February 9). AIG to pay $800 million to settle securities fraud charges by SEC Retrieved from http://www.sec.gov/news/press/2006 19.htm Urban Institute & BoardSource. (2005). Urban Institute nat ional survey of nonprofit governance preliminary findings. Retrieved from http://www.boardsource.org/dl.asp?document_id=473 Walker, D. M. (2005). Tax exempt sector: Governance, transparenc y, and oversight are critical for maintaining public trust. United States Government Accountability Office (GAO 05 561T): Testimony before the House Committee on Ways and Means. Welch, S., & Welch, J. (2007, April 30). When to talk, when to balk: As today for transparency grows louder, here are four simple rules for managers. Business Week, Issue 4032 102 102.

PAGE 229

229 Chronicle of Philanthropy, 20 (7), 18 18. Williams, C. C. (2005). Trust diffusion: The effect of interpersonal trust on structure, function, and organizational transparency. Business & Society, 44 (3), 357 368. Yang, S U. (2007). An integrated model for organization public relational outcome s, organizational reputation, and their antecedents. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19 (2), 91 121. Yang, S U, & Grunig, J. E. (2005). Decomposing organisational reputation: The effects of organisation public relationship outcomes on cognitive representations of organisations and evaluations of organisational performance. Journal of Communication Management, 9 (4), 305 325. Yee, W. M. S., & Yeung, R. M. W. (2010). An empirical examinati on of the role of trust in consumer and supplier relationship of little direct contact: A structural equation modeling approach. Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 22 143 163. Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of service quality. Journal of Marketing, 60 (1), 31 46.

PAGE 230

230 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Giselle A. Auger received her Ph.D. from the College of Journalism and Communications at the University of Florida. Prior to embarking on the Ph. D. Giselle spent 15 years working in the nonprofit sector, most recently as the executive director of a small nonprofit in Portland, Maine. She began her career as a freelance journalist and has worked in newspaper and book publishing, and various marketi ng and communications roles. She was a board member and officer of the Maine Public Relations Council for 10 years and is accredited in public relations (APR) through the Public Relations Society of America. Giselle has been recognized by the Association of Researchers in Nonprofit and Voluntary Action (ARNOVA) as an emerging scholar, was Educators in Journalism and Mass Communications (AEJMC) annual convention, and c o 2010 conference Giselle received her Bachelor of Arts with individual concentration in political communication from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst in 1986, and her m Lancaster, England, in 1988.