Post on 11-Sep-2021
transcript
Running head: BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR
BRAND PERSONALITY AND ORGANIZATIONPUBLIC RELATIONSHIPS:
IMPACTING DIMENSIONS BY CHOOSING A TEMPERAMENT FOR COMMUNICATION
A RESEARCH PAPER
SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE
MASTER OF ARTS IN PUBLIC RELATIONS
BY DAVID J. CLEVELAND II
ADVISER: MICHELLE O’MALLEY
BALL STATE UNIVERSITY
MUNCIE, INDIANA
JULY 2016
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 2
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank my advisor, Michelle O’Malley, of the Department of Journalism at Ball
State University. Her knowledge and support were invaluable throughout, and she helped push
me and made sure this project was a success. She saw the value in the research and in my efforts,
and she taught me plenty—this is just as much a result of her fantastic guidance.
I would like to thank Ball State University Career Center Associate Director Brandon Bute for
his expert opinions on the topic of personality type indicators and the assistance and guidance he
provided. I would also like to thank Ball State Career Center staff members Charlie Ricker and
Eilis Wasserman as well as University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Senior Assistant Director
Camille Mason for their assistance in determining correct language.
I would like to thank my father, David Cleveland, for his support while I progressed through this
endeavor, but also for his expert advice about the psychological and type indicator realm. Your
insight and recommendations were provoking and always welcomed.
Lastly, thank you to the others that encouraged me and allowed me to use as idea sounding
boards —my mother, Cyndi Cleveland, Victoria Meldrum, and Joseph Bailey. Thank you to
Lauren Fisher for putting up with my nonstop late night research and writing sessions as well as
appreciating the constant babbling I would do to any passerby that would listen to my ideas and
findings and what it all means.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 3
Table of Contents
1. Purpose … 6
2. Review of Literature … 7
2.1 Organizationpublic relationships … 7
2.2 Twoway dialogic communications … 9
2.3 Dimensions of organizationpublic relationships … 10
3. Hypotheses … 12
4. Method … 13
4.1 Definitions and scales … 13
4.2 Temperament theory and type indicators … 16
4.3 Subjects … 17
4.4 Pretest … 17
4.5 Procedure … 18
4.6 Analysis … 19
5. Results … 21
5.1 Data reduction and reliability analysis … 21
5.2 Oneway ANOVA and post hoc tests … 23
5.3 Hypothesis 1 … 24
5.4 Hypothesis 2 … 25
5.5 Hypothesis 3 … 26
5.6 Hypothesis 4 … 28
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 4
5.7 Hypothesis 5 … 29
5.8 Hypothesis 6 … 30
5.9 Hypothesis 7 … 31
5.10 Hypothesis 8 … 32
6. Discussion … 34
6.1 What does it mean? … 34
6.2 Implications … 36
6.3 Specific vernacular … 37
6.4 Tweet game should be strong … 38
6.2 Limitations and further research … 39
7. Conclusions … 40
Bibliography … 41
Appendix … 51
A. “Xentro Motors” biography and tweets … 51
B. “Finn Motor Company” biography and tweets … 53
C. “Saef” biography and tweets … 55
D. “Tossi of America” biography and tweets … 57
E. Survey questions … 59
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 5
List of Figures
Figure 1, Intuitivethinking tweet example … 18
Figure 2, Intuitivefeeling tweet example … 19
Figure 3, Reliability of trust questions … 21
Figure 4, Reliability of control mutuality questions … 22
Figure 5, Reliability of satisfaction questions … 23
Figure 6, Reliability of commitment questions … 23
Figure 7, ANOVA chart for all four temperament types … 24
Figure 8, Significant p values for commitment with Tukey HSD … 25
Figure 9, ANOVA comparing intuitive companies to sensing companies … 26
Figure 10, Significant p values for control mutuality with Tukey HSD … 27
Figure 11, ANOVA comparing thinking companies to feeling companies … 28
Figure 12, Significant p values for satisfaction with Tukey HSD … 29
Figure 13, ANOVA comparing thinking companies to feeling companies … 30
Figure 14, Significant p values for trust with Tukey HSD … 31
Figure 15, ANOVA comparing intuitive companies to sensing companies … 33
Figure 16, Plot of the regression factor scores of four temperaments … 35
Figure 17, Plot of the regression factor scores of related to dimensions … 37
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 6
1. Purpose
Words matter—we all know it. They indicate descriptors and elaborate. They paint pictures and
tell stories. They represent cultures and classes and education and wisdom and so much more.
Specific words can allude to specific personalities and how an individual may think or behave.
So too, when organizations are discussed, the words associated with their everyday information
and communication can be indicative of a specific brand personality.
The purpose of this project is to determine if an organization could use small changes to its
everyday language in order to create better relationships with its publics. Organizations may not
be people, but they do have brand personalities, and by leveraging those, a positive
organizationpublic relationship can be had.
This study is designed to determine if brand personalities impact the strength of an
organizationpublic relationship (OPR). With the MyersBriggs Type Indicator (MBTI) being a
commonly used measurement for human temperament differences, it is believed that
organizations can choose to present general communication in one of these temperament styles
for positive impact. By tapping into these personality aspects, organizations and publics can have
a better understanding of each other and can see even stronger relationships develop because of
them.
Developing a brand personality can prove to be a simple yet important factor into developing
powerful relationships between organizations and their publics.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 7
2. Review of Literature
2.1 Organizationpublic relationships
Ever since Ledingham and Bruning presented their theory of organizationpublic relationships
for public relations (1998), the social science field has embraced the concept and devoted plenty
more research into solidifying many of the themes. According to Bruning and Ledingham, “the
relationships management perspective has the potential to serve as a platform to guide theoretical
inquiry and professional practice, and to provide a method of evaluation that is consistent with
the management approach” (p. 158). Prior to the strong call for organizationpublic relationships
as a management process, some scholars expressed concern that there was less attention paid to
organizationpublic relationships than there should have been, and many researchers were
missing out on defining them (Broom, Casey, & Ritchey, 1997). However, since Ledingham and
Bruning’s public stance on the theory, organizationpublic relationships have been assessed and
reviewed many times over, with many more results growing from the theory.
“Relationshipbuilding became a central issue, and various scholars have developed theories,
models, and measurement scales to analyze and define organizationpublic relationships”
(Avidar, 2013, p. 440). Public relations is a management perspective that focuses on
organizations and how relationships can be managed with their publics (Heath, 2013).
Organizationpublic relationships has now been a subject researched in a bevy of fields,
strengthening its claim as a solid public relations theory and showcasing successful research
supporting Ledingham and Bruning’s initial claims. The assortment of research on
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 8
organizationpublic relationships and how it intersects with countless walks of life includes—but
is not limited to—the following: between a city and its housing residents (Bruning, Langenhop,
& Green, 2004); between a European football club, its ownership, and the community where it is
located (Coombs & Osborne, 2012); and practical uses of OPR in the military (Plowman, 2013).
Waymer discussed how relationships could be measured in a government setting, emphasizing
on OPR being not just theoretical, but practical (2013). It has even been used in art! “Only by
letting publics speak in their own terms can we begin to understand their concerns and issues,
not just their responses to our concerns and agendas” (ForernanWernet & Dervin, 2006, p. 293).
Using arts in experimentation methods with OPR, excellent twoway symmetrical
communication was found, and user perceptions changed in other instances (Banning & Schoen,
2007). Basically, there are instances where one can find studies of OPR everywhere.
“Organizationpublic relationships have been extensively examined in various contexts,
including corporate, nonprofit, government, global, and online settings” (Men, 2014, p. 261).
Organizationpublic relationships go beyond just studies, though. The theory has been tied to a
myriad of other public relations aspects, such as crisis responding like when Brown and White
wrote, “Maintaining positive relationships with stakeholders is more important than any
individual crisis response strategy” (2010, p. 88). It is also regularly linked to corporate social
responsibility and engagement (Devin & Lane, 2014) and even online user interfaces and
experiences (Vorvoreanu, 2006). Ivanov, Sims, and Parker argue that OPR should be considered
in full integrated marketing communications strategies, bleeding beyond just pure public
relations (2013).
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 9
2.2 Twoway dialogic communications
OPR ties in, as well, to symmetrical communication (Bruning and Ledingham, 2000; Shen and
Kim, 2012). Not everything should be onesided. Lee and Park explain why interactivity is so
important (2013), Kent and Taylor stress dialogue (2002), and twoway dialogic interactions are
studied extensively (Avidar, et al., 2015). “Because the ultimate goal of a public relations
program should be to build a mutually beneficial relationship with key public members, it is
important that public relations practitioners manage organizationpublic relationships by using a
twoway symmetrical model” (Bruning & Ledingham, 1999, p. 91).
Engaging in twoway communication is so much more important than just emphasizing the
organization’s needs—it shows a mutual understanding (Taylor & Kent, 2014). Sometimes there
are unique ways to approach dialogic aspects of communication (ForernanWernet & Dervin,
2006), while Twitter is becoming the staple of twoway communication (Sweetser, English, &
Fernandes, 2015) that can provide the biggest impact toward OPR dimensions. “Social media
channels… with twoway, interactive/dialogical, communal, and relational features should be
harnessed to promote employee participation, engagement, and community building” (Men,
2014, p. 274275). Grunig may not have had Twitter when he was developing breakthrough
public relations ideas two decades ago, but he did have the foresight to put so much emphasis on
twoway symmetrical communication and how successful relationships involve mutual benefit
for both the organization and the public (1993).
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 10
2.3 Dimensions of organizationpublic relationships
What aspects make up OPRs and dialogic communication, though? How can it be measured?
Hon and Grunig developed dimensions for OPR that included trust, control mutuality,
satisfaction, and commitment (1999). Further research into dimensions has proposed other
potential dimensions—Kim initially looked at 10 in 2001: trust, mutuality, commitment,
satisfaction, communal relationship, openness, community involvement, affective intimacy,
relationship termination cost, and reputation. Most, however, have helped solidify the four
primary dimensions—for instance two studies by Huang that reinforced the said dimensions
(2001a, 2001b).
Bruning and Ledingham lamented for better way to measure OPR. “Because relationships can be
difficult to measure, public relations practitioners often have struggled to demonstrate the
influence that public relations activities have on consumer perceptions, evaluations, and
behaviors” (2000, p. 85). Six years later, and there were still those calling for better
measurements. “Although many scholars and practitioners understand that mutual benefit is an
important part of public relations research and practice, measurement systems for determining
the advantages of obtaining mutual benefit have not emerged” (Bruning, DeMiglio, & Embry,
2006, p. 33). Thankfully, Ki and Hon provided plenty of research to help solidify dimensions on
which to follow (2007; 2009). In addition to their great contributions, Auger helped show the
incredible connection between the dimension of trust and transparency (2014), Ki showed
positive correlations of the dimensions in the banking industry (2013), and Moon and Rhee
emphasized the negative aspects that can be associated with dimensions (2013). “When both
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 11
parties to an organizationpublic relationship are able to influence the other, an equal partnership
can develop” (Bruning, Dials, and Shirka, 2008, p. 29).
Ultimately, these dimensions help showcase the strengths of the OPR. They give it more
substance and areas on which to focus. These dimensions also show there can be different types
of relationships, dependent on other factors. “Organizations, like people, form different types of
relationships with different actors” (Yang & Taylor, 2015, p. 103).
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 12
3. Hypotheses
After considering the potential for how brand personality types might impact the dimensions of
organizationpublic relationships, the following hypotheses seem reasonable.
1. “IntuitiveFeeling” (NF) organization will be more associated with commitment than the
other types.
2. Organizations with “intuition” (N) will have higher associations with commitment than
types with “sensing” (S).
3. “IntuitiveThinking” (NT) organization will be more associated with control mutuality
than the other types.
4. Organizations with “thinking” (T) will have higher associations with control mutuality
than types with “feeling” (F).
5. “SensingFeeling” (SF) organization will be more associated with satisfaction than the
other types.
6. Organizations with “feeling” (F) will have higher associations with satisfaction than
types with “thinking” (T).
7. “SensingThinking” (ST) organization will be more associated with trust than the other
types.
8. Organizations with “sensing” (S) will have higher associations with trust than types with
“intuition” (N).
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 13
4. Method
This study is designed to determine if brand personalities impact the strength of an
organizationpublic relationship (OPR). With the MyersBriggs Type Indicator (MBTI) being a
commonly used measurement for human temperament differences, it is believed that
organizations can choose to present general communication in one of these “brand personality”
styles for positive impact. Using dimensions of OPR—trust, satisfaction, control mutuality, and
commitment, as discussed by Hon and Grunig (1999)—as indicators of positive or negative
relationships, it should be determined if there is any impact based on emulating four specific
personality types through basic organization communication.
4.1 Definitions and scales
Dimensions of OPR are chosen as representations of solid indicators for positive or negative
connections. In addition, the dimensions of trust, satisfaction, control mutuality, and commitment
will provide a solid example of scale when determining what type of connections are prevalent
amongst the personality types.
Trust relates to the confidence someone has in another. Three dimensions include integrity, “the
belief that an organization is fair and just;” dependability, “the belief that an organization will do
what it says it will do;” and competence, “the belief that an organization has the ability to do
what it says it will do” (Hon and Grunig, 1999). To measure trust, modified questions originally
posited by Hon and Grunig (1999) were used to determine how trustworthy survey recipients
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 14
found a mock company. The following questions were asked to measure trust for a given brand
personality.
1. This organization can be relied on to keep its promises.
2. I believe this organization would take opinions of people like me into account when
making decisions.
3. I feel very confident about this organization’s skills.
4. This organization does not mislead people like me.
5. I think it is important to watch this organization closely so that it does not take advantage
of people like me. (Reversed)
Satisfaction deals with parties feeling positive toward one another because of reinforced
favorable expectations. To measure satisfaction, updated questions originally constructed by Hon
and Grunig (1999) were used to figure out how satisfactory survey recipients found a mock
company. The following questions were asked to measure satisfaction for a given brand
personality.
1. I am happy with this organization.
2. Most people like me would be happy in their interactions with this organization.
3. I feel people like me are important to this organization.
4. Both the organization and people like me benefit from the relationship.
5. The organization fails to satisfy the needs of people like me. (Reversed)
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 15
Control mutuality revolves around how much each party can influence one another and the
agreement on that. To measure control mutuality, questions originally developed by Hon and
Grunig (1999) were modified and used to determine the level of control mutuality survey
recipients found in a mock company. The following questions were asked to measure control
mutuality for a given brand personality.
1. This organization believes the opinions of people like me are legitimate.
2. I believe people like me have influence on the decisionmakers of this organization.
3. This organization and people like me are attentive to what each other say.
4. When I would have an opportunity to interact with this organization, I feel that I would
have some sense of control over the situation.
5. This organization won’t cooperate with people like me. (Reversed)
The main aspects of commitment are each party wanting to produce effort to maintain the
relationship. Hon and Grunig (1999) created questions to measure commitment that were
modified and used to discover levels of commitment survey recipients found within a mock
company. The following questions were asked to measure commitment for a given brand
personality.
1. I can see that this organization wants to maintain a relationship with people like me.
2. I would rather work together with this organization than not.
3. There is a longlasting bond between this organization and people like me.
4. Compared to other organizations, I would value my relationship with this organization
more.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 16
5. I have no desire to have a relationship with this organization. (Reversed)
4.2 Temperament theory and type indicators
Within the realm of temperament theory, sensing and intuition typically focus around how
people gather information but can also project how parties prefer to produce final details. Based
opposite of each other, sensing is much more concrete and literal, playing around the five
senses—sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell—while intuition is much more abstract and
possibilitybased, placing emphasis on “what if’s” more than the here and now (Jung, 1971;
Keirsey, 1984).
Thinking and feeling are used more for making decisions. When parties make certain choices,
some focus more on logic and reason—placing them into the thinking spectrum. As for feeling,
choices are made more on value systems and beliefs in what is right or wrong. These also fall
diametrically opposed to each other, with personalities leaning one way or another (Jung, 1971;
Keirsey, 1984).
The pairs of thinking/feeling and intuition/sensing were chosen for use over the other primary
type indicator preferences (introversion/extraversion and judging/perceiving) for multiple
reasons. First off, these four preferences are brought up in studies about type regularly and have
been included in personality type research since Carl Jung (1971) used elements in his archetype
research. Describing them as basic functions of the psyche, these were the bases on which his
other type research revolved. Keirsey continued with Jung’s propositions, creating the
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 17
groundwork for many of the type indicators and temperament sorters used in abundance today
(1984). In addition to the core functional reasons, the pair of extraversion/introversion was also
left out of this study because of the need for larger swaths of communication points to accurately
denote obvious differences. As for the judging/perceiving duo, many of those temperament
preferences are based on timesensitive aspects, creating a difficult environment to gather the
requisite responses. If hypotheses for this study are supported, both other pairs could be
considered in future research.
4.3 Subjects
Subjects were predominantly recruited from classes within Ball State University's Department of
Journalism. Assisting faculty offered five points of extra credit in exchange for subjects
participating in the study. Students were informed of the opportunity by the principal investigator
via email, with a link to the Qualtrics survey provided as well as brief information about the
investigation. Subjects then took the survey online through Qualtrics wherever was convenient
for them. All subjects were 18 years of age or older and willing participants. Participants were
able to withdraw from the survey with no consequences. In order to maximize responses,
partially finished surveys were accepted, with answered questions being included in data.
Coercion did not take place within the survey, and no potential risks were perceived.
4.4 Pretest
For the initial pretest, four fictitious organizations (brands) were created—each representing
different personality types from the MBTI spectrum, including intuitivefeeling (NF),
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 18
intuitivethinking (NT), sensingfeeling (SF), and sensingthinking (ST). These brands were
created to closely align the communication with four MBTI types that were presented in a brief
biography and several posts on Twitter (tweets). To assure the organizations represented specific
types through their general communication, a panel of experts analyzed and confirmed the
content to accurately reflect the four temperaments.
For the pretest, subjects reviewed the material from the four brands through a survey and
responded using a sevenpoint Likert scale to discover how individual brands rated amongst
dimensions of OPR. The test did not make mention of MBTI to subjects so as not to illicit
potential bias from those familiar with the type indicator. This allowed for chances to learn of
technical and comprehension difficulties to ensure the main surveys were administered
successfully.
Figure 1. Intuitivethinking tweet example. This figure showcased one of the tweets used in the
survey representing metaphorical, yet datadriven Xentro Motors brand.
4.5 Procedure
With the four brands securely in place and the online aspects confirmed after the pretest, the
survey moved on to the majority of respondents. After filling out a consent page and reading
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 19
about the aspects of the survey—including that each company has been created solely for the
purpose of the survey—students moved onto the main portions. This online Qualtrics survey
consisted of sections grouped by each of the four mock brands. After reviewing the materials for
an organization, respondents then answered the questions relating to OPR dimensions (trust,
satisfaction, etc.) listed in “Definitions and Scales” above. Each question had a sevenpoint
Likert scale response option, ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree,” with a neutral
response in the center. A total of 20 questions were asked for each organization. To ensure no
responsebias, the four organizations were randomized for each individual, and the questions
relating to each organization were randomized as well. More than 80 students participated in this
survey, many of which opted to receive extra credit as an incentive.
Figure 2. Intuitivefeeling tweet example. This figure showcased one of the tweets used in the
survey representing metaphorical, yet emotionbased Finn Motor Company brand.
4.6 Analysis
Once the responses were completely gathered, a data reduction was run in order to prepare the
figures for the best analysis. A factor analysis was addressed to determine that all the figures
were meaningful and reliable in comparison to the rest of the data. The hypotheses were
measured using multiple tests to determine if they were supported. A oneway analysis of
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 20
variance was used in order to determine if there was any gap of significance between the means
of the groups since there were both independent and dependent variables. Tukey’s honest
significance difference test was used in the post hoc test to determine where the differences
appeared amongst the brand personality type groups. Since using post hoc tests necessitates
multiple groups, it was not used to compare just thinking to feeling or sensing to intuition.
However, simple means ANOVA were still run on the pairs.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 21
5. Results
Ultimately, there were mixed results as to
what was expected initially compared to
what was found after the surveys. While it
was expected to have a range of brand
personalities having favorable aspects in
different areas, there instead seemed to be
clear strong types and weak types.
5.1 Data reduction and reliability analysis
The survey data was run through a data
reduction, creating scales for trust, control
mutuality, satisfaction, and commitment.
This was done in order to compare the four
dimensions of OPR for each brand personality
type against each other. As the figures were
run through a reliability analysis, an overall
Cronbach’s Alpha of .906 came back, indicating very legitimate data. Quality survey results
were further strengthened when looking to see how figures would work if answers were deleted.
Questions relating to “trust” ranged from .900 to .911 Cronbach’s Alpha, while “control
mutuality” survey questions gave the highest figure of the bunch, ranging from a .899 to .906.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 22
The questions that reflected “satisfaction” had
a range of .899 to .903, and questions for
“commitment” ranged from .898 to .902. Even
with the lowest question having a floor of .898
Cronbach’s Alpha, all the questions came back
incredibly reliable and relevant.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 23
5.2 Oneway ANOVA and post hoc tests
A oneway analysis of variance was used next. Between the groups of the dimensions, all four
were determined to be significant. Satisfaction showed a significance value of .001, while trust,
control mutuality, and commitment each had values of significance of .000, respectively.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 24
Figure 7. ANOVA chart for all four temperament types. This figure showcased core values and
significance for the oneway analysis of variance amongst the temperaments NT, NF, SF, and
ST.
When comparing just intuition to sensing, significance was also shown across the board, with
values of .000 for trust and commitment and values of .001 for control mutuality and satisfaction.
Meanwhile, between thinking and feeling, only one dimension showed
significance—commitment, with a value of .044. The nonsignificant values were as follows:
.539 for trust, .373 for control mutuality, and .229 for satisfaction.
5.3 Hypothesis 1
Original hypothesis: “IntuitiveFeeling” (NF) organization will be more associated with
commitment than the other types.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 25
To test this hypothesis, a oneway analysis of variance was used, creating F = 13.587, df = 259,
Sig. = .000. Since a significant figure was produced using the ANOVA, a post hoc test was run,
using Tukey’s model for multiple comparisons significance. NF produced significant p values of
.002 over NT and .000 over both SF and ST. When comparing regression factor score means, NF
had the highest of .617. NT had .012, ST had .262, and SF had .340.
Figure 8. Significant p values for commitment with Tukey HSD. This figure shows mean
difference and the significance between NF and NT, NF and SF, and NF and ST.
Result: This is supported. Intuitivefeeling proved to be the strongest of the four types used—not
just in this category, but in all. It was significant with commitment in the ANOVA, and it had
significant comparisons to the other three types as well as the regression factor score mean.
5.4 Hypothesis 2
Original hypothesis: Organizations with “intuition” (N) will have higher associations
with commitment than types with “sensing” (S).
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 26
To test this hypothesis, a oneway analysis of variance was used, creating F = 13.587, df = 259,
Sig. = .000. A significant figure was produced using the ANOVA, but a post hoc test could not
be run, as there were only two groups in intuition and sensing. However, when comparing
regression factor scores for commitment, N had a mean of .301, while S had a mean of .301.
Figure 9. ANOVA comparing intuitive companies to sensing companies. This figure shows the
significance between intuition and sensing for commitment.
Result: This is supported. Intuition seemed to have connotations ranging from neutral to very
positive for every dimension, but this original hypothesis stands true. A significance was
apparent in the ANOVA, and the regression factor score mean for intuition was higher than that
of sensing.
5.5 Hypothesis 3
Original hypothesis: “IntuitiveThinking”(NT) organization will be more associated with control
mutuality than the other types.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 27
Figure 10. Significant p values for control mutuality with Tukey HSD. This figure shows mean
difference and the significance between NT and NF, NT and SF, and NT and ST.
To test this hypothesis, a oneway analysis of variance was used, creating F = 6.158, df = 263,
Sig. = .000. Since a significant figure was produced using the ANOVA, a post hoc test was run,
using Tukey’s model for multiple comparisons significance. NT did not produce any significant
numbers (compared to NF p = .052, to SF p = .046, to ST p = .742). When comparing regression
factor score means for control mutuality, NT had .004. NF had the highest, with .414, ST had
.114, and SF had the lowest, with 292.
Result: This is unsupported. While intuitive thinking brand seemed better than sensingthinking
and sensingfeeling according to means, it was more a beneficiary of the other two being so
negative while it maintained primarily a neutral impact. It also had no significant showing at all.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 28
5.6 Hypothesis 4
Original hypothesis: Organizations with “thinking” (T) will have higher associations with
control mutuality than types with “feeling” (F).
To test this hypothesis, a oneway analysis of variance was used, creating F = .796, df = 263,
Sig. = .373. No significant figure was produced using the ANOVA, and a post hoc test could not
be run anyways, as there were only two groups in thinking and feeling. Also, when comparing
regression factor scores for control mutuality, T had a mean of .054, and F had a mean of .056.
Result: This is unsupported. The only dimension that even did seem to have significance
between thinking and feeling was in commitment, and even then, feeling surpassed thinking
anyways. Thinking was not higher rated, and no significance was found.
Figure 11. ANOVA comparing thinking companies to feeling companies. This figure shows the
significance between thinking and feeling for control mutuality.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 29
5.7 Hypothesis 5
Original hypothesis: “SensingFeeling” (SF) organization will be more associated with
satisfaction than the other types.
Figure 12. Significant p values for satisfaction with Tukey HSD. This figure shows mean
difference and the significance between SF and NT, SF and NF, and SF and ST.
To test this hypothesis, a oneway analysis of variance was used, creating F = 5.669, df = 262,
Sig. = .001. Since a significant figure was produced using the ANOVA, a post hoc test was run,
using Tukey’s model for multiple comparisons significance. SF did not produce a significant p
value for NT (.423) or ST (.951), but it did with NF at .001. However, when comparing
regression factor score means, SF had a .248. NF had the highest at .405, NT had .010, and ST
had .158.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 30
Result: While it is very associated with satisfaction and shows significance, it is a completely
negative association according to the means. Intuitive feeling had the most positive connection in
this instance. This is unsupported.
5.8 Hypothesis 6
Original hypothesis: Organizations with “feeling” (F) will have higher associations with
satisfaction than types with “thinking” (T).
To test this hypothesis, a oneway analysis of variance was used, creating F = 1.453, df = 262,
Sig. = .229. No significant figure was produced using the ANOVA, and a post hoc test could not
be run, as there were only two groups in thinking and feeling. Also, when comparing regression
factor scores for control mutuality, T had a mean of .073, and F had a mean of .076.
Figure 13. ANOVA comparing thinking companies to feeling companies. This figure shows the
significance between thinking and feeling for satisfaction.
Result: While feeling does rate higher than thinking for satisfaction, it is by incredibly small
amounts and is deemed insignificant. This is unsupported.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 31
5.9 Hypothesis 7
Original hypothesis: “SensingThinking” (ST) organization will be more associated with trust
than the other types.
To test this hypothesis, a oneway analysis of variance was used, creating F = 9.296, df = 263,
Sig = .000. Since a significant figure was produced using the ANOVA, a post hoc test was run,
using Tukey’s model for multiple comparisons significance. ST produced a significant figure of
p = .003 to NF, but nonsignificant figures to NT and SF of p = .742 and p = .390, respectively.
When comparing regression factor score means, ST had .123. NF was highest with .471, while
NT had .045, and SF had the lowest, with .388.
Figure 14. Significant p values for trust with Tukey HSD. This figure shows mean difference
and the significance between ST and NT, ST and NF, and ST and SF.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 32
Result: This is unsupported. No dimension rated highest—or even secondhighest—with sensing
thinking. It was consistently negative in every category, and the significance that was present
was more indicative of the strong NF.
5.10 Hypothesis 8
Original hypothesis: Organizations with “sensing” (S) will have higher associations with trust
than types with “intuition” (N).
To test this hypothesis, a oneway analysis of variance was used, creating F = 18.267, df = 263,
Sig. = .000. A significant figure was produced using the ANOVA, but a post hoc test could not
be run, as there were only two groups in intuition and sensing. However, when comparing
regression factor scores for commitment, N had a mean of .253, while S had a mean of .257.
Result: This is unsupported. Sensing figures were consistently low across the board—if anything,
using sensing language can only hurt. Negative figures abound, and the only significance is that
it is so opposite of NF.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 33
Figure 15. ANOVA comparing intuitive companies to sensing companies. This figure shows the
significance between intuition and sensing for trust.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 34
6. Discussion
6.1 What does it mean?
The results in this study were impressive. The sheer scale of the chasm between positiveleaning
language and negatively impactful verbiage was impressive. Language matters in a
phenomenally huge way—both positively and negatively. Within the world of sales and
marketing, language is known to matter, but this impresses just how much it matters in the most
seemingly mundane of items.
It was expected for some brand personalities to better correlate with dimensions of OPR, but
intuitivefeeling was clearly leaps and bounds better than the rest. Not only that, but everything
in the sensing realm—all the straightforward language about seeing, hearing, tangible
things—eschewed incredibly low for each and every dimension of OPR, especially for
sensingfeeling. Intuitivethinking, meanwhile, stayed neutral almost across the board.
The implications for this on public relations as a whole are significant—practitioners need not
focus just on press releases, “official” statements, and the like, but instead they need to be
putting thought into general content in everyday conversation, especially in social media.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 35
Figure 16. Plot of the regression factor scores of four temperaments. This figure depicts the
differences in the NT, NF, SF, and ST temperaments and shows how similar the dimensions are
to each.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 36
6.2 Implications
This matters because language plays a much larger role in regular aspects. Copywriters may
create great ad campaigns, and content producers may produce plenty of clicks, but the generic
everyday aspects are just as important. One, organization decisionmakers should be meeting
with communications practitioners to develop a brand personality and all the “brand speak”
(Wheeler, 2009). that goes along with it. That includes deciding what tone to take in
conversations and general pieces. In what way do you tell directions? How do you mention the
founder of an organization? What generic aspects are on the horizon? All of those previously
overlooked areas should now be able to fit with the language indicative of the brand personality.
Brand personality has been covered much in the advertising world, be it on the link with
campaigns like Dove with “actual self” models being featured (Malär, Krohmer, Hoyer, &
Nyffenegger, 2011), the visual appeal for personality (Branaghan & Hildebrand, 2011), because
of performance (Malär, Nyffenegger, Krohmer, & Hoyer, 2011), or clever gimmicks that make
up the persona (Heath & Heath, 2007). Now, however, the basic language matters so much
more—organizations should be creating a brand personality that is consistent across all areas.
Language that may have been handled halfheartedly because it just needed to fill a place should
be thought out and stay consistent with the overall theme of the organization’s brand personality.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 37
Figure 17. Plot of the regression factor scores of related to dimensions. This figure depicts the
how dimensions are similar and different for each of the four temperaments surveyed.
6.3 Specific vernacular
Intuitivefeeling, represented by fictitious brand Finn Motor Company, was far and away the
strongest performing brand personality type tested. It emphasized the theoretical and
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 38
possibilityladen side of the organizations. It didn’t focus on the here and now or the sights and
sounds—instead it made references. The product did not matter, and the subjects appreciated that
en masse. In addition, the brand personality type of Finn Motor Company approached the
sensitive side of language. The biography and tweets talked more about hardworking (feeling)
instead of horsepower (thinking). It brought up subjects like Thanksgiving. Basically, it almost
went out of its way to not directly talk about the brand or its product. This is what should be
done. Metaphor and hyperbole, emotions and connections—welcome to the new brand economy.
6.4 Tweet game should be strong
Twitter is a strong medium on its own, but using it the right way—using the best language—will
be an important aspect of every practitioner going forward. Knowing how to speak for a
company’s brand should be in each practitioner’s toolbox. Basically, no language gets a day
off—it all has to be crafted specifically to maximize the relationships between the organizations
and their publics. This is should put more emphasis on organizations crafting specific
communications guidelines and determining how to “speak” in general senses all the time. By
focusing on how to craft language, it will allow more emphasis to be put elsewhere, creating
positive impact for trust, control mutuality, satisfaction, and commitment without having to
invest too much time or resources. Mention an upcoming holiday, quote a song, use an
emoji—these are ok things to do, and an organization’s publics will appreciate it for being
relatable.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 39
6.5 Limitations and Future Research
While this investigation proved to have great results, it could definitely use more studies going
forward. For one, the sample was limited to millennials at a Midwestern university. The sample
size could be expanded to be more thorough and to also see if there are any impacts based on age
or region. Furthermore, it would be interesting to discover the personality types indicators of
subjects while doing the research to see if there are any connections. Students that are interested
in journalism and communications majors are more likely to be of one type than others (but are
not necessarily). With that in mind, further research could shed light on if there is any
connections between a subject’s type and the types that create the most positive or negative
impact.
In addition to strengthening the sample size and discovering personality types of subjects, it
could also help to create a wider variety of brand examples. Current brands were avoided in this
study to avoid any types of biases, but with a large enough sample size, most biases could most
likely be avoided, providing similar positive and negative press coverage leading up to surveys.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 40
7. Conclusions
It sounds cliché, but words matter. Not only do words matter, but words can make or break a
relationship between an organization and a public before anything substantial is even started.
Before an ad actually gets a chance to pitch a product, before a spokesperson can regale a group
of investors of an organization’s merits, and before a campaign has a chance to even begin
molding perception for an issue, the most basic of semantics are of great importance.
Ultimately, many of the original hypotheses were shot down in this research. However, in
learning what was incorrect, there was a great breakthrough in what did and did not work.
Sensingfeeling absolutely tanked. Subjects wholly rejected the tangible qualities of
organizations and their products being discussed and how they related to emotions. Subjects did
not want to equate looks and status or newness with a particular smell—they instead decidedly
backed intuitivefeeling. Metaphors and hypotheticals and how they could benefit a subject’s
emotions won the day in this study. Overwhelmingly so, tying the company and product to
things that had nothing to do with its product was the way to go. Couple that with playing up
how those elements impacted emotions made intuitivefeeling the clearcut leader in ways every
organization should have its staff writing about it in everyday speech.
Etymologists of the world will hopefully be offering their services, as plenty of organizations
could benefit from having some logophiles on retainer. The great thing is that anyone can do this,
though, so holster your thesaurus and prep your emojis—it’s about to get wordy up in here.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 41
Bibliography
Adamson, A. P. (2006). Brand simple. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Alford, J. (2002). Defining the client in the public sector: A socialexchange perspective. Public
Administration Review, 62(3). 337346. Ang, S. H. & Ching Lim, E. A. (2006). The influence of metaphors and product type on brand
personality perceptions and attitudes. Journal of Advertising, 35(2). 3953. Auger, G. A. (2014). Trust me, trust me not: An experimental analysis of the effect of
transparency on organizations. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(4). 325343.
Avidar, R. (2013). The responsiveness pyramid: Embedding responsiveness and interactivity into public relations theory. Public Relations Review, 39(5). 440450.
Avidar, R., Ariel, Y., Malka, V., & Levy, E. C. (2015). Smartphones, publics, and OPR: Do publics want to engage?. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 214221.
Ayish, M. I. (2005). Virtual public relations in the United Arab Emirates: A case study of 20 UAE organizations’ use of the Internet. Public Relations Review, 31. 381388.
Banning, S. A. & Schoen, M. (2007). Maximizing public relations with the organizationpublic
relationship scale: Measuring a public’s perception of an art museum. Public Relations Review, 33(4). 437439.
Bents, R., & Blank, R. (2010). Understanding the dynamics of typical people: An introduction to Jungian type theory. Cambridge, MA: Hogrefe Publishing.
Brakus, J. J., Schmitt, B. H., & Zarantonello, L. (2009). What is it? How is it measured? Does it
affect loyalty?. Journal of Marketing, 73(3). 5268. Branaghan, R. J. & Hildebrand, E. A. (2011). Brand personality, selfcongruity, and preference:
A knowledge structures approach. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 10. 304312.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 42
Briones, R. L., Kuch, B., Liu, B. F., & Jin, Y. (2011). Keeping up with the digital age: How the American Red Cross uses social media to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 37. 3743.
Brønn, P. S. & Olson, E. L. (1999). Mapping the strategic thinking of public relations managers
in a crisis situation: An illustrative example using conjoint analysis. Public Relations Review, 25(3). 351368.
Broom, G. M., Casey, S., & Ritchey, J. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of
organizationpublic relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9. 8398.
Brown, K. A. & White, C. L. (2010). Organizationpublic relationships and crisis response strategies: Impact on attribution of responsibility. Journal of Public Relations Research, 23(1). 7592.
Bruning, S. D. (2002). Relationship building as a retention strategy: Linking relationship attitudes and satisfaction evaluations to behavioral outcomes. Public Relations Review, 28(1). 3948.
Bruning, S. D., DeMiglio, P. A., & Embry, K. (2006). Mutual benefit as outcome indicator: Factors influencing perceptions of benefit in organizationpublic relationships. Public Relations Review, 32(1). 3340
Bruning, S. D., Dials, M., & Shirka, A. (2008). Using dialogue to build organizationpublic relationships, engage publics, and positively affect organizational outcomes. Public Relations Review, 34(1). 2531.
Bruning, S. D. & Galloway, T. (2003). Expanding the organizationpublic relationship scale: Exploring the role that structural and personal commitment play in organizationpublic relationships. Public Relations Review, 29. 309319.
Bruning, S. D., Langenhop, A., & Green, K. A. (2004). Examining cityresident relationships:
Linking community relations, relationship building activities, and satisfaction evaluations. Public Relations Review, 30. 335345
Bruning, S. D. & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics: Development of a multidimensional organizationpublic relationship scale. Public Relations Review, 25(2). 157170.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 43
Bruning, S. D. & Ledingham, J. A. (2000). Perceptions of relationships and evaluations of satisfaction: An exploration of interaction. Public Relations Review, 26(1). 8595.
Buchholz, A., & Wördemann, W. (2000). What makes brands different? The hidden meaning behind the world’s most successful brands. (J. D. Brennan, Trans.). West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Callison, C. (2003). Media relations and the Internet: How Fortune 500 company websites assist
journalists in news gathering. Public Relations Review, 29. 2941. Chung, J. Y., Lee, J., & Heath, R. L. (2013). Public relations aspects of brand attitudes and
customer activity. Public Relations Review, 39(5). 432439.
Coombs, D. S. & Osborne, A. (2012). A case study of Aston Villa Football Club. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(3). 201221.
Curtis, L., Edwards, C., Fraser, K. L., Gudelsky, S., Holmquist, J., Thornton, K., & Sweetser, K. D. (2010). Adoption of social media for public relations by nonprofit organizations. Public Relations Review, 36. 9092.
Delbaere, M., McQuarrie, E. F., & Phillips, B. J. (2011). Personification in advertising: Using a
visual metaphor to trigger anthropomorphism. Journal of Advertising, 40(1). 121130. Devin, B. L. & Lane, A. B. (2014). Communicating engagement in corporate social
responsibility: A metalevel construal of engagement. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 436454.
Diga, M. & Kelleher, T. (2009). Social media use, perceptions of decisionmaking power, and public relations roles. Public Relations Review, 35. 440442.
DiStaso, M. W., McCorkindale, T., & Wright, D. K. (2011). How public relations executives
perceive and measure the impact of social media in their organizations. Public Relations Review, 37. 325328.
Eisend, M. & StokburgerSauer, N. E. (2013). Measurement characteristics of Aaker’s brand
personality dimensions: Lessons to be learned from human personality research. Psychology and Marketing, 30(11). 950958.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 44
Eyrich, N., Padman, M. L., & Sweetser, K. D. (2008). PR practitioners’ use of social media tools and communication technology. Public Relations Review, 34. 412414.
ForernanWernet, L. & Dervin, B. (2006). Listening to learn: “Inactive” publics of the arts as
exemplar. Public Relations Review, 32(3). 287294.
Gallicano, T. D. (2013). Internal conflict management and decision making: A qualitative study of a multitiered grassroots advocacy organization. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25(4). 368388.
Gilpin, D. R. (2010). Organizational image construction in a fragmented online media environment. Journal of Public Relations Research, 22(3). 265287.
Gobé, M. (2009). Emotional branding. New York, NY: Allworth Press. GonzálezHerrero, A. & Ruiz de Valbuena, M. (2006). Trends in online media relations:
Webbased corporate press rooms in leading international companies. Public Relations Review, 32. 267275.
Grunig, J. E. (1993). Image and substance: From symbolic to behavioral relationships. Public
Relations Review, 19. 121139.
Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2007). Made to stick. New York, NY: Random House Publishing Group. Heath, R. L. (2013). The journey to understand and champion OPR takes many roads, some not
yet well traveled. Public Relations Review, 39. 426431.
Hon, L. C. & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Measuring relationships in public relations. Gainesville, FL: Institute for Public Relations.
Huang, Y. H. (2001a). OPRA: A crosscultural, multipleitem scale for measuring organizationpublic relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(1). 6190.
Huang, Y. H. (2001b). Values of public relations: Effects on organizationpublic relationships
mediating conflict resolution. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13(4). 265301. Huang, Y. H. (2004). Is symmetrical communication ethical and effective? Journal of Business
Ethics, 53(4). 333352.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 45
Huang, Y. H. & Zhang, Y. (2013). Revisiting organizationpublic relations research over the past decade: Theoretical concepts, measures, methodologies, and challenges. Public Relations Review, 39. 8587.
Hutton, J. G. (1999). The definition, dimensions, and domain of public relations. Public
Relations Review, 25(2). 199214. Hwang, S. (2012). The strategic use of Twitter to manage personal public relations. Public
Relations Review, 38. 159161. Ingenhoff, D. & Sommer, K. (2010). Trust in companies and in CEOs: A comparative study of
the main influences. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(3). 339355. Ivanov, B., Sims, J. D., & Parker, K. A. (2013). Leading the way in new product introductions:
Publicity’s message sequencing success with corporate credibility and image as moderators. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25(5). 442466.
Jacobi, J. (1971). Complex/archetype/symbol in the psychology of C.G. Jung. (R. Manheim, Trans.) Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1959)
Jung, C. G. (1971). Psychological Types (Vol. 6). (G. Adler & R. F. C. Hull, Trans.). Princeton,
NJ: Princeton University Press. (Original work published 1921) Jung, C. G., Franz, M. L., Henderson, J. L., Jacobi, J., & Jaffé, A. (1964). Man and his symbols.
New York, NY: Doubleday. Kang, M. (2014). Understanding public engagement: Conceptualizing and measuring its
influence on supportive behavioral intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5). 399416.
Keirsey, D. & Bates, M. (1984). Please understand me: Character and temperament types. Del
Mar, CA: Prometheus Nemesis Book Company. Kent, M. L. & Taylor, M. (1998). Building dialogic relationships through the world wide web.
Public Relations Review, 24(3). 321334. Kent, M. L. & Taylor, M. (2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations
Review, 28. 2137.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 46
Kent, M. L., Taylor, M., & White, W. J. (2003). The relationship between website design and organizational responsiveness to stakeholders. Public Relations Review, 29. 6377.
Ki, E. J. (2013). A model of an organizationpublic relationship for the banking industry. Public
Relations Review, 39(3). 216218.
Ki, E. J. & Hon, L. C. (2007). Reliability and validity of organizationpublic relationship measurement and linkages among relationship indicators in a membership organization. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 84(3). 419438.
Ki, E. J. & Hon, L. C. (2009). A measure of relationship cultivation strategies. Journal of Public Relations Research, 21(1). 124.
Kim, H. S. (2009). Examining the role of informational justice in the wake of downsizing from an organizational relationship management perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 88(2). 297312.
Kim, Y. (2001). Searching for the organizationpublic relationship: A valid and reliable
instrument. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 78. 799815.
Kirat, M. (2007). Promoting online media relations: Public relations departments’ use of Internet in the UAE. Public Relations Review, 33. 166174.
Kunde, J. (2002). Unique now… or never. Harlow, England: Pearson Education Limited. Lauzen, M. M. (1995). Public relations manager involvement in strategic issue diagnosis. Public
Relations Review, 21(4). 287304. Ledingham, J. A. & Bruning, S. D. (1998). Relationship management and public relations:
Dimensions of an organizationpublic relationship. Public Relations Review, 24. 5565.
Lee, H. & Park, H. (2013). Testing the impact of message interactivity on relationship management and organizational reputation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 25(2). 188206.
Liu, X. (2006). Beauty is in the eye of the beholder: Public relations and multinational corporations. International Journal of Advertising, 25(4). 447470.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 47
Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter: How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Review, 38. 313318.
Maehle, N. & Supphellen, M. (2011). In search of the sources of brand personality. International
Journal of Market Research, 53(1). 95114. Malär, L., Krohmer, H., Hoyer, W. D., & Nyffenegger, B. (2011). Emotional brand attachment
and brand personality: The relative importance of the actual and the ideal self. American Marketing Association, 75. 3552.
Malär, L., Nyffenegger, B., Krohmer, H., & Hoyer, W. D. (2011). Implementing an intended
brand personality: A dyadic perspective. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 40. 728744.
Mark, M, & Pearson, C. S. (2001). The hero and the outlaw. New York, NY: McGrawHill. McAllisterSpooner, S. M. (2009). Fulfilling the dialogic promise: A tenyear reflective survey
on dialogic Internet principles. Public Relations Review, 35. 320322. Men, L. R. (2014). Why leadership matters to internal communication: Linking transformational
leadership, symmetrical communication, and employee outcomes. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(3). 256279.
Millman, D. (2011). Brand thinking and other noble pursuits. Jeremy Lehrer, (Ed.). New York, NY: Allworth Press.
Moon, B. B. & Rhee, Y. (2013). Exploring negative dimensions of organizationpublic
relationships (NOPR) in public relations. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 90(4). 691714.
Neumeier, M. (2003). The brand gap. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing. Ni, L. (2006). Relationships as organizational resources: Examining public relations impact
through its connection with organizational strategies. Public Relations Review, 32. 276281.
Papacharissi, Z. & Rubin, A. M. (2000). Predictors of Internet use. Journal of Broadcasting and
Electronic Media, 44(2). 175196.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 48
Park, J. K. & John, D. R. (2010). Got to get you into my life: Do brand personalities rub off on
consumers?. Journal of Consumer Research, 37. 655669. Plowman, K.D. (2005). Conflict, strategic management, and public relations. Public Relations
Review, 31. 131138. Plowman, K. D. (2013). Creating a model to measure relationships: US army strategic
communication. Public Relations Review, 39(5). 549557.
Porter, L. (2010). Communicating for the good of the state: A postsymmetrical polemic on persuasion in ethical public relations. Public Relations Review, 36. 127133.
Puzakova, M., Kwak, H., & Rocereto, J. F. (2013). When humanizing brands goes wrong: The
detrimental effect of brand anthropomorphization amid product wrongdoings. Journal of Marketing, 77. 81100.
Riso, D. R. (1987). Personality types: Using the Enneagram for selfdiscovery. Boston, MA:
Houghton Mifflin Company. Romaniuk, J. (2008). Comparing methods of measuring brand personality traits. Journal of
Marketing Theory and Practice, 16(2). 153161. Rybalko, S. & Seltzer, T. (2010). Dialogic communication in 140 characters or less: How
Fortune 500 companies engage stakeholders using Twitter. Public Relations Review, 36. 336341.
Shen, H. M. & Kim, J. N. (2012). The authentic enterprise: Another buzz word, or a true drive of
quality relationships?. Journal of Public Relations Research, 24(4). 371389.
Steyn, P., SalehiSangari, E., Pitt, L., Parent, M., & Berthon, P. (2010). The social media release as a public relations tool: Intentions to use among B2B bloggers. Public Relations Review, 36. 8789.
Stoker, K. (2014). Paradox in public relations: Why managing relating makes more sense than
managing relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(4). 344358.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 49
Sung, M. & Yang, S. U. (2009). Studentuniversity relationships and reputation: A study of the links between key factors fostering students’ supportive behavioral intentions towards their university. Higher Education, 57(6). 787811.
Sung, Y. & Kim, J. (2010). Effects of brand personality on brand trust and brand affect.
Psychology and Marketing, 27(7). 639661. Swaminathan, V., Stilley, K. M., & Ahluwalia, R. (2009). When brand personality matters: The
moderating role of attachment styles. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(6). 9851002. Sweetser, K. D., English, K., & Fernandes, J. (2015). Super PACs and strong relationships: The
impact of digital interaction on the political organizationpublic relationship. Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(2), 101117.
Sweetser, K. D. & Kelleher, T. (2011). A survey of social media use, motivation and leadership among public relations practitioners. Public Relations Review, 37. 425428.
Taylor, M. & Kent, M. L. (2010). Anticipatory socialization in the use of social media in public
relations: A content analysis of PRSA’s Public Relations Tactics. Public Relations Review, 36. 207214.
Taylor, M. & Kent, M. L. (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts.
Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), 384398.
Taylor, M., Kent, M. L., & White, W. J. (2001). How activist organizations are using the Internet to build relationships. Public Relations Review, 27. 263284.
Theunissen, P. & Wan Noordin, W. N. (2012). Revisiting the concept “dialogue” in public
relations. Public Relations Review, 38. 513. Valentini, C. (2015). Is using social media “good” for the public relations profession? A critical
reflection. Public Relations Review, 41(2), 170177.
Valentini, C., Kruckeberg, D., & Starck, K. (2012). Public relations and community: A persistent covenant. Public Relations Review, 38(5). 873879.
Vasquez, G. M. & Taylor, M. (2000). What cultural values influence American public relations
practitioners?. Public Relations Review, 25(4). 433449.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 50
Verhoeven, P., Tench, R., Zerfass, A., Moreno, A., & Verčič, D. (2012). How European PR practitioners handle digital and social media. Public Relations Review, 38. 162164.
Vorvoreanu, M. (2006). Online organizationpublic relationships: An experiencecentered
approach. Public Relations Review, 32(4). 395401.
Waters, R. D., Burnett, E., Lamm, A., & Lucas, J. (2009). Engaging stakeholders through social networking: How nonprofit organizations are using Facebook. Public Relations Review, 35. 102106.
Waters, R. D. & Jamal, J. Y. (2011). Tweet, tweet, tweet: A content analysis of nonprofit
organizations’ Twitter updates. Public Relations Review, 37. 321324. Waymer, D. (2013). Democracy and government public relations: Expanding the scope of
“relationship” in public relations research. Public Relations Review, 39(4). 320331.
Wheeler, A. (2009). Designing brand identity (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Wong, L. (2005). Brand think: A guide to branding. Victoria, BC, Canada: Trafford Publishing. Xifra, J. & Grau, F. (2010). Nanoblogging PR: The discourse on public relations in Twitter.
Public Relations Review, 36. 171174. Yang, A. & Taylor, M. (2015). Looking over, looking out, and moving forward: Positioning
public relations in theorizing organizational network ecologies. Communication Theory, 25(1), 91115.
Yang, L. W., Cutright, K. M., Chartrand, T. L., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2014). Distinctively
different: Exposure to multiple brands in lowelaboration settings. Journal of Consumer Research, 40. 973992.
Yorkston, E. A., Nunes, J. C., & Matta, S. (2010). The malleable brand: The role of implicit
theories in evaluating brand extensions. Journal of Marketing, 74. 8093.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 51
Appendix A
IntuitiveThinking Company
Xentro Motors
Biography:
Founded in 2001, Xentro Motors was created by a collection of scientists and engineers that had
one desire—to create oneofakind vehicles with peak performance, low costs, and
sustainability. Xentro’s team of inventors and innovators build engines that surpass the
standard—the Model X accelerates from 0 to 60 mph in 3.6 seconds, the Model Y achieves a
remarkable 85 miles per gallon, and the Model Z has more than 1,000 different customizable
combinations. At Xentra, a premium is placed on using vehicles in new and different ways while
still performing at the highest end of any competition.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 52
Twitter:
@XentroMotors
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 53
Appendix B
IntuitiveFeeling Company
Finn Motor Company
Biography:
Finn Motor Company is an American automaker based out of historic Detroit. Founded in the
1930’s, we are proud of our heritage, and it shows in our automobiles. We are committed to
producing great products for many types of people, and we always strive to be a part of
something better. Whether you are looking for a family road trip or just something safe to grow
old with, we make the vehicle for you. With the best car portfolio on this side of the pond, our
commitment to improving our vehicles and our drivers’ lives is always at the forefront of our
minds.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 54
Twitter:
@FMC
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 55
Appendix C
SensingFeeling Company
Saef
Biography:
It is a most perfect history. Sati’s emblem is known worldwide and symbolizes performance,
power, and prestige. We have been around for ages, and everyone recognizes the specific Saef
bold design. Listen to the story of Saef, the auto company that grew from humble beginnings as a
sprocket company in the early 1900’s through tough times that forced the company to become
stronger through a depression until the founder created the signature look of what came to be
known as Saef. Feel the nostalgia, embrace the car’s contours, and see the boldness of colors.
Hearing “Saef” will produce excitement, and we want you to be a part of that when you purchase
your own.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 56
Twitter:
@Saef
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 57
Appendix D
SensingThinking Company
Tossi of America
Biography:
Created in 1950, Tossi was the result of two European inventors who wanted to create a solid
machine for transport. Blood, sweat, and tears were thrown into the mix, and the original Tossi
Sidewinder Car was born. It was loud, but it was efficient. Over the years, our company has
expanded to Asia, Africa, and North America and created many more cars along the way. They
may not all be as loud as the first Sidewinder, but they are still pushing forward in efficiency.
Tossi is a car that you can feel the 1.5ton heft of the steel frame that you know will keep you
safe, while allowing for acceleration that beats all others. Tossi is affordable and outperforms: if
you don’t believe us, come see for yourself.
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 58
Twitter:
@TossiUS
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 59
Appendix E
Survey questions asked regarding each company (organized by OPR dimension)
Trust
1. This organization can be relied on to keep its promises.
• • • • • • •
Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree
2. I feel very confident about this organization’s skills.
• • • • • • •
Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree
3. I believe that this organization takes the opinions of people like me into account when making
decisions.
• • • • • • •
Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree
4. This organization does not mislead people like me.
• • • • • • •
Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree
5. I think it is important to watch this organization closely so that it does not take advantage of
people like me. (Reversed)
• • • • • • •
Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 60
Control mutuality
6. This organization believes the opinions of people like me are legitimate.
• • • • • • •
Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree
7. This organization won’t cooperate with people like me. (Reversed)
• • • • • • •
Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree
8. I believe people like me have influence on the decisionmakers of this organization.
• • • • • • •
Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree
9. This organization and people like me are attentive to what each other say.
• • • • • • •
Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree
10. When I would have an opportunity to interact with this organization, I would feel that I have
some sense of control over the situation.
• • • • • • •
Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 61
Commitment
11. I can see that this organization wants to maintain a relationship with people like me.
• • • • • • •
Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree
12. I would rather work together with this organization than not.
• • • • • • •
Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree
13. I have no desire to have a relationship with this organization. (Reversed)
• • • • • • •
Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree
14. There is a longlasting bond between this organization and people like me.
• • • • • • •
Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree
15. Compared to other organizations, I would value my relationship with this organization more.
• • • • • • •
Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree
BRAND PERSONALITY AND OPR CLEVELAND 62
Satisfaction
16. I am happy with this organization.
• • • • • • •
Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree
17. Most people like me are happy in their interactions with this organization.
• • • • • • •
Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree
18. I feel people like me are important to this organization.
• • • • • • •
Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree
19. Both the organization and people like me benefit from the relationship.
• • • • • • •
Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree
20. The organization fails to satisfy the needs of people like me. [Reversed]
• • • • • • •
Strongly disagree Neutral Strongly Agree