Content-Type: text/html

Running Head: DO PR PRACTITIONERS HAVE A PR PROBLEM


Do PR Practitioners Have a PR Problem?: 
The Effect of Associating a Source with Public Relations 
and Client-Negative News on Audience Perception of Credibility

by

Coy Callison
Ph.D. Candidate

University of Alabama
College of Communication and Information Sciences
P.O. Box 870172
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0172
(205) 347-3708
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0101B%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3Dquoted-printable%26P%3D9612592%26B%3D--%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D_19791003%253D%253D_%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a>









Abstract
Through a 2 X 2 factorial experiment (N=141), information source type (PR Spokesperson or Generic Spokesperson) and message topic (Client-Neutral and Client-Negative) were varied to determine how both affect audience perception of source credibility. Results suggest public relations and the organizations they represent are perceived as less credible than unidentified sources and their employers. Also, sources and their sponsors communicating organization-negative news are perceived as less credible than those communicating client-neutral information.















Do PR Practitioners Have a PR Problem?:
The Effect of Associating a Source with Public Relations
and Client-Negative News on Audience Perception of Credibility
While most public relations practitioners work toward maintaining a favorable image of a client, the profession seldom works on its own behalf to campaign for the image of public relations itself. As a result, an industry that focuses on the creation of positive relationships between various publics faces the real challenge of maintaining its own reputation before the same publics it tries to influence. With organizations asking public relations practitioners to serve as sources and public contacts in an ever increasing role as information disseminators (Turk, 1986), one would be inclined to believe that public relations practitioners have been proven as quality spokespersons. While person-on-the-street surveys have shown that the public is critical of practitioners, little empirical evidence exists to determine whether public relations spokespersons can successfully serve as credible sources of information to the public.
Literature Review
Information is seldom judged as accurate or taken at face-value in a vacuum, free from peripheral influences. Communication settings, from political rallies to barber shops, all possess environmental contexts that mandate behaviors and arouse expectations. Likewise, a source's gender, race, speech rate, communication habits, accent, and job title all can influence the effectiveness of a speaker's message (O'Keefe, 1990; Perloff, 1993; Sparks, 1993). 
Perhaps the most researched source factor is credibility. Credibility refers to the judgments made by a message recipient concerning the believability of a communicator. Source competence and source trustworthiness have emerged as the two most widely accepted components in factor-analytic investigations of what composes communicator credibility (O'Keefe, 1990). Competence is generally regarded as reflecting a source's expertise in the area of communication. Trustworthiness, the second component of source credibility, is reflected in an audience's belief in the integrity of a source. How a message recipient evaluates source credibility based on that source's trustworthiness is of particular interest in studying public relations practitioners' effectiveness as organizational communicators (Durham, 1997). Studies of trustworthiness have relied on audiences making assessments of communicators' telling the truth or being honest in a particular situation (e.g., Berlo, Lemert & Mertz, 1969; Hovland & Weiss, 1951; Eagly, Wood & Chaiken, 1978; Tuppen, 1974).
        Trustworthiness has proven to be a key component in establishing a source's credibility and message accuracy (Sereno & Hawkins, 1967; Tuppen, 1974). In fact, trustworthiness and honesty rank as criteria for accuracy over a source's being knowledgeable, expert, experienced, sincere, unbiased, likable, and motivated (Priester & Petty, 1994). Data implying credibility is directly related to perceived trustworthiness and honesty suggests that sources meeting these criteria do well in disseminating information, and those that do not are considered questionable sources at best. Any attempt to uncover the ability of public relations spokespersons to serve as quality organizational communicators then hinges on perceptions of the practitioners.
        In the summer of 1999, the Public Relations Society of America released the results of a five-year credibility study it had sponsored with the support of the Rockefeller Foundation. The purpose of the study was to produce a measure of the credibility that the public attributes to those who provide information. The PRSA came under fire, however, when the index revealed the low ranking attained by public relations specialists (see "PR deserves its low credibility mark," 1999). The survey, which involved more than 2,500 interviews, revealed that public relations specialists ranked 42nd out of 44 public figures. While Supreme Court justices ranked first with a credibility score of 81.3, public relations specialists garnered only 47.6 points and ranked just above TV or radio talk show hosts and famous entertainers but below famous athletes, student activists and pollsters to name a few (the index is available on the PRSA web site). 	
        Not surprisingly, Newsom, Ramsey, and Carrell (1993) found that the group image follows the individual one - even when evaluated by those within the industry. They discovered that media scholars' and professionals' images of public relations and its practitioners were skewed to the negative. The researchers surveyed 361 public relations educators, 174 Public Relations Student Society of America chapter presidents, and 370 public relations professionals and asked them to respond to statements concerning the image of public relations and ethics in the business. Only 11% of the respondents answered "yes" or "definitely yes" when asked "Is the current image of public relations and its practitioners a favorable one?"
        Coming to much the same conclusions, officials studied the perceptions of public relations by conducting a survey of students enrolled in introductory PR courses (Saunders, 1993). Half of first-time public relations students agreed that "honesty is a relative term" in public relations, and 71% agreed or strongly agreed that public relations specialists "make flower arrangements of the facts." These findings coupled with those of Newsom et al. (1993) and the more recent Credibility Index indeed paint a picture consistent with Boxer's 1994 statement in The Business Journal that indicated the image of the PR practitioner is "akin to that of the prototypical unctuous used-car salesman and the corrupt politician." 
        An overview of the components of source credibility and insight into the commonly held opinions of public relations practitioners provides a springboard to a study of the influence of associating a source with public relations on an audience's perception of a message's accuracy and that message's sponsors. A knowledge that source credibility, and thus an audience's willingness to accept a message, is directly related to a source's perceived trustworthiness supplemented with an understanding that public relations professionals are seen by society to be untrustworthy seems to suggest that public relations practitioners are doomed as messengers. Because source credibility is contingent on perceived honesty and perceived honesty is not public relations' strong suit, a final area of interest in a study of the use of public relations in disseminating information is the source of the profession's negative image. 
        Arguing that people want to understand why a communicator takes a particular position on a topic, Eagly et al. (1978) developed an attribution-based theory of source trustworthiness. The researchers based the theory on the belief that receivers are motivated to attribute fabricated qualities to a speaker to help them understand why a speaker advocates a particular position on an issue. They contended that receivers' explanations for the communicator's behavior influenced the judgments that they made about the source's credibility. Finally, the researchers determined that perceptions of the source credibility diminish when receiver infers that the speaker possesses either knowledge bias or a reporting bias.
        When a receiver assumes that a source holds a position on a topic because the source's background and knowledge about the topic have prevented him/her from looking objectively at the issue, the receiver believes the source has a knowledge bias. Eagly et al. found that research participants were more persuaded and found the source more credible when they believed that the source had taken a position that did not reflect his/her knowledge bias. More important to the study of public relations is reporting bias. When receivers believe that situational pressures (job requirements or audience expectations) cause a source to withhold certain facts, the receiver concludes the source has a reporting bias. When attributing a reporting bias to a source, receivers infer that the pressures of a situation affect a communicator's willingness to be honest. In short, research participants believed that when confronted with an audience that expected or favored a particular stance on an issue, a speaker would be compelled to meet those expectations and possibly waiver from the known truth in an attempt to tell an audience what it wants to hear. 
        The implications of Eagly et al. research on the image of public relations seem obvious. As established earlier, the public associates public relations with bending the truth if necessary to make the client look positive. For the practitioner to position the client in the best possible light, the practitioner might be seen as telling the public what it wants to hear or withholding certain facts. To the public, it would seem that the PR industry mandates its sources to maintain a reporting bias in favor of the client ("Behind the PRSA," 1999).
        In light of these findings, the public relations industry's most pressing client in need of an image boost may be itself (see also Bovet & Moore, 1984; Englehardt & Evans, 1994; Harris, 1993; Saunders, 1993). Scholars have isolated four key factors that play a role in determining public relations' ability to serve as a quality source. First, research has shown that receivers note credibility in messengers to determine the believability and accuracy of communications. Second, an audience relies on judgments concerning a source's trustworthiness and competence in evaluating credibility. Third, public relations practitioners, students, and in fact the general public doubt the trustworthiness of PR professionals. And finally, this image can be attributed in part to public relations practitioners often trying to appease receivers and the tendency to believe sources are not honest that speak to an audience's expectations in persuasive situations. 
While all indicators seem to point to public relations practitioner lacking credibility, researchers have yet to determine audience perception of public relations in a media environment. To date, the available data on the ability of practitioners to serve as spokespersons has been generated mostly through opinion surveys. As in the Credibility Index, respondents are often simply asked to evaluate public relations practitioners in no context. The Credibility Index in particular called for respondents to respond to types of spokespersons from a list of nearly 50 informants. While "cold" evaluations may provide some insight to perceptions of those in the public relations industry, surveys do not reveal how audiences actually respond to practitioners when their names and occupation appear in print associated with some stance on a news issue. This study attempts to fill that gap in the research. The following hypotheses were tested: 
General Credibility Hypothesis
H1:     Sources identified as public relations practitioners and the organizations they represent will be rated more negatively on items underlying credibility than sources not identified as practitioners and the organizations they represent.
Perceived Bias Hypothesis
         While not all organizational communication centers on events that audiences could assume require crafty communication efforts, public relations practitioners are increasingly visible in times of company crisis. The Eagly et al (1978) attribution-based theory suggests that audience scrutiny should be highest when potentially company damning news is communicated, regardless of particular source occupation within an organization. The fact that public relations practitioners often serve as spokespersons in client-negative situations, however, provides a unique setting for reporting bias research. The following hypothesis also guided the investigation.
H2:     There will be an effect of story type on credibility ratings and components such that sources communicating company-positive news in a blatantly company-negative situation will be rated more negatively than sources communicating in a more neutral setting.

Method
Overview
        A 2X2 factorial experiment was employed with source type and message topic being varied. Of the four possible stimulus articles created in the fully-crossed design, each research participant was randomly assigned one. Participants evaluated the company and information source attributed to each article. These ratings were assessed so as to allow comparisons across both source and message types. Possible interaction effects were also investigated 
Participants
Research participants (n=141) were drawn from a population of elementary and high school teachers from three different districts across two Southern states. Teachers served as the participants in the experiment for two specific reasons. First, research suggests that newspapers remain the premier source of public affairs information (Robinson & Levy, 1996), and certain demographic factors of teachers closely match those of average newspaper readers. The most important characteristic determining newspaper readership is education level achieved (Robinson & Levy, 1996). Fifty percent of Americans with a high school education or less read newspapers compared to 68% who have college degrees, (Reina, 1995). Finally, newspaper readership is less prominent in groups composed of people under 30 years old. 
        The same characteristics that describe newspaper readers also describe teachers. The average public school teacher has a masters degree and is 43 years old (Reiss, 1997). With their combined educational status and average age, teachers accurately represent the group that researchers believe use the print media most. In fact, the demographics of the teacher participants in this study accurately reflect those of the average teacher and newspaper reader. Sixty-six percent of the participants were age 35 or older, and 55.3% held graduate degrees.
        Second, university research in communication draws heavily from students as participants. Communication students, however, may have different opinions concerning public relations than the public in general because it can be assumed that a percentage of communication students are interested in public relations. The majority of mass communication students would, at the very least, have greater than average awareness of the profession. 
Stimulus Material
Information source type was manipulated by composing two sets of messages. One set contained a blatantly identified public relations source; the other messages contained a spokesperson not labeled as a PR practitioner. It should be noted that the research was focused on determining the influence of associating "public relations practitioner" with a person's name. In the "PR Source" messages, information was attributed to public relations specialists Pat Johnson. In the "Generic Source" messages, information was attributed simply to Pat Johnson, identified solely as being employed by the company. Although, one could argue that the non-PR source in the manipulation could be judged to have held a public relations-type job, the effects of a source being plainly labeled a public relations practitioner were of primary interest. Ultimately, the messages were identical across source condition except that one had the words "public relations" mentioned twice and the other did not. Because all messages were composed of more than 300 words and so few words varied, more than 98 percent of the text was held constant.
The message topic variable was manipulated through the use of two different story topics. In the "Client-Negative" message, the focus was on a company's responsibility for a chemical spill that could potentially leak into a town's water supply. In the "Client-Neutral" message, the focus was on a company's new computer chip. Source and message variables were manipulated as to produce four articles for the sample to review. One message had an identified public relations source announcing the accident. The second message again covered the same announcement, but the source of the information was not identified as a PR practitioner. The third and fourth messages, respectively, announced a company's new product, using a PR Source as the information source in one message and a Generic source in the other. 
Procedure
Participants were given one of the four stimulus articles and told it was taken from the Associated Press Newswire. The articles were randomly distributed in teacher mailboxes at the schools. Of the 577 articles and questionnaires distributed in the 10 test schools, 141 completed surveys were returned, resulting in a 24.4% response rate. 
        Instructions distributed with the articles asked participants to respond to an attached questionnaire after privately reading the report. In addition to providing demographic information, the questionnaire required participants to answer questions concerning motivations behind the announcements and perceptions of the messages' sources (the specific information source and the company employing the source). The measures included the following:
Evaluation of specific information source. Participants were asked to rate the information source on a variety of items. On a Likert-type scale with 5 = Strongly Agree and 1 = Strongly Disagree, participants were asked to indicate if they thought the source was (a) a good spokesperson, (b) telling the truth, and (c) a credible source of information. In addition, respondents were asked to rate the source on a series of seven-point semantic differential-type scales. The anchors of the scale were Intelligent/Unintelligent, Expert/Inexpert, Informed/Uniformed, Honest/Dishonest, Trustworthy/Untrustworthy. The bi-polar adjectives were taken from past credibility research (McCroskey & Young, 1981). 
Evaluation of company employing the information source. Participants were asked to rate the company on a variety of items. On a Likert-type scale with 5 = Strongly Agree and 1 = Strongly Disagree, participants were asked to indicate if they thought the company (a) was trying to do what it believes was best for society, (b) had honest intentions, (c) had a hidden agenda (reverse coded for analysis), and (d) was telling the truth in its entirety. In addition, respondents were asked to rate the company on a series of seven-point semantic differential-type scales. The anchors of the scale were Honest/Dishonest, Trustworthy/Untrustworthy. The competence items employed in the ratings of the individual source were not used because they seemed inappropriate in evaluating an organization.
Analyses
        The data from each questionnaire item was first submitted to a 2 (source) X 2 (story) ANOVA. No significant interaction effects were found. The decision then was made to investigate each independent variable separately using t tests. Because hypotheses outlined predicted effects, data were submitted to one-tailed tests.  In instances where a Levene's Test suggested inequality of variance across means, proper adjustments were made to the test statistic. 
Results
General Credibility Hypothesis
        H1 was partially supported. Preliminary analysis comparing information sources across both disaster and product announcement stories revealed that several of the ratings of source type approached significance. In particular, PR Sources were seen as less likely to be telling the truth (t (139) = 1.60, p = .055), more dishonest ((t (139) = 1.37, p = .011), and less trustworthy (t (139) = 1.60, p = .057). All associated means and standard deviations are shown in Table 1. 
Perhaps more important considering the promotional role of public relations, the company covered in the message suffered the most negative blow from association with a PR Source. Across story type the company was rated as less likely to be telling the truth (t (139) = 3.32, p = .001) and more likely dishonest (t (139) = 1.92, p = .028) when a PR Source represented the organization's interests. In fact, more than half of those reading the Generic Source article rated the organization positively on the seven-point honesty item, but only one-third of those reading the article with the PR Source answered likewise. Approaching significance, findings also revealed that the company was seen as less trustworthy when employing a PR Source (t (139) = 1.52, p = .065).
        Despite the data suggesting the organizations portrayed in the articles lose perceived trustworthiness when a PR Source serves as their spokesperson, the effect did not contaminate feelings concerning company intentions. Research participants seemed to feel the organizations had honest intentions. Regardless of the source of information in the article, participants supplied a mean response of 3.3 on a five-point scale when indicating their extent of agreement with the statement that the organization had honest intentions behind its announcement. These findings seem almost contradictory to those discussed earlier. PR practitioners serving as organizational spokespersons result in their companies being seen as dishonest, but participants did not doubt the intentions of companies using public relations practitioners as spokespersons any more than participants doubted the intentions of organizations using sources not tied to public relations.
        Despite data suggesting that associating a PR Source with an organization leads to doubts of that organization's and the source's honesty, the competence component of source credibility did not vary significantly by source. Participants ranked PR Sources equally as informed as Generic Sources, and participants found PR Sources just as intelligent as unaffiliated sources.
        While the hypothesized effects were not significant across all measures, a review of the data did suggest a confirmed trend. By ranking the mean scores for each measure according to research group, a pattern of Generic Sources receiving more positive scores for each item emerged (see Table 2). In fact, Generic Sources outranked their PR Source counterparts in 13 of the 14 measures. Because the experimental groups read articles with a total of four situations (PR and Generic by product announcement and disaster announcement), the data lent itself to being arranged in a manner that allowed each of the sources to be ranked one through four according to the mean score achieved per measure. (A ranking of one indicates that source had the highest, most positive, mean score on that particular measure). Analysis of the rankings for the 14 measures revealed that the average ranking of a Generic Source was 1.9 while the average ranking of a PR Source was 3.1, F(1, 55) = 18.91, p < .001. 
Perceived Bias Hypothesis
        H2 was supported partially. Preliminary analysis comparing the spokesperson and company across both source-type stories revealed several of the credibility ratings differentiated significantly. In particular, individual sources were seen as more expert (t (130.6) = 2.32, p = .011) and more informed (t (139) = 1.93, p = .028) in the Client-Neutral message. In fact, a crosstabs analysis of the group's responses revealed that respondents who read the Client-Negative news story were more than three times as likely as their research counterparts to rate the information source in the story as inexpert and more than eight times as likely to rate them as uniformed. Also, the finding that the source was rated as less likely a good spokesperson in the Client-Negative message approached significance(t (139) = 1.31, p = .097). All associated means and standard deviations are shown in Table 1. 	
As in investigations of H1, predicted negative effects of association with client-negative news carried across to the organization itself. The company was rated as less trustworthy in the Client-Negative message (t (123.6) = 1.80, p = .037). In fact, participants reading the Client-Negative message were three times as likely as those reading the Client-Neutral message to rate the organization as untrustworthy. Perceptions that the company was less likely telling the truth (t (135.1) = 1.59, p = .057) and more dishonest (t (125.0) = 1.59, p = .058) in the Client-Negative story as compared to the Client-Neutral story approached significance. 
        Despite the Client-Negative messages receiving lower rankings on the source competence facet of credibility, the spokespersons in the disaster stories were not seen as significantly less trustworthy than the spokespersons communicating the seemingly neutral product announcement. The information sources across both messages were ranked almost identically on the item asking participants to determine the trustworthiness of the source. On a seven-point scale anchored by untrustworthy at 1 and trustworthy at 7, Client-Neutral message readers gave the source a mean score of 4.1, and participants reading the Client-Negative news gave the source a mean score of 4.0. Along the same lines, participants agreed to an identical rating (3.1) in response to a question asking them their extent of agreement with a statement that the source was telling the truth. 
        As discussed in the examination of H1, ranking the individual measures across the four groups according to mean score provided another insight to how research participants perceived the credibility of sources revealing different types of information. When each measure is examined in terms of which research groups gave the most credibility-positive responses to each questionnaire item a trend develops. The participants reading messages covering Client-Neutral news ranked the source or organization in the message more positive than did those who read the potentially Client-Negative messages in nine of the 14 measures (see Table 2). An analysis of variance of the rankings revealed a main effect for message type, F(1, 52) = 4.43, p < .05. In fact, the Client-Neutral messages had a mean ranking of 2.2 across the measures while Client-Negative messages had a mean ranking of 2.8 across the same measures.
Discussion
        This experiment explored the influence a public relations title and a client-negative communication setting has on perceived spokesperson and organization credibility. Specifically, it was predicted that information sources blatantly identified as PR practitioners would be judged as less credible than information sources whose exact job within an organization was unknown. It was also predicted that sources communicating client-negative news would be seen as less credible than sources communicating client-neutral news. Past investigations into the perceived credibility of public relations practitioners has focused on survey research where respondents have been asked to evaluate PR specialists completely free of any communicative context. This experiment offers new insight into the ability of public relations practitioners to serve as credible spokespersons by testing their effectiveness in a news environment and through typical channels of public relations communication.  
While the data are not strong enough to prompt outright condemnation of PR sources serving as contacts, this study suggests that public relations spokespersons and the organizations they represent are perceived in a more negative light than are generic spokespersons and companies not utilizing PR staff as press contacts. The manipulation also suggests that spokespersons and organizations garner increased negative sentiment when communicating client-negative information compared to counterparts communicating more neutral news.
        Specifically, damage resulting from association with the words "public relations" befalls the organizations that use these spokespersons more so than it does the source itself. Organizations represented by an identified public relations spokesperson are perceived as significantly more dishonest and less likely to be telling the truth than organizations represented by spokesperson not perceived to have roots in the PR department. It seems logical that if being identified with public relations would lead to negative credibility, it would manifest itself in source perceptions as well as organizational perceptions. But while the spokesperson was rated more negatively in the public relations condition, the findings were not all significant at the .05 level. Possibly, audiences are not as quick to downgrade a source's credibility on account of public relations affiliations as they are to doubt organizational credibility when a public relations practitioner serves as the company's mouthpiece. Along the same lines, it is possible that audiences are simply more skeptical of organizations as a whole than they are of individual employees. Without further research, one can assume that organizations and not spokespersons receive the brunt of the negative effects stemming from association with public relations.
        Finally in regards to the source credibility hypotheses, it should be noted also that an examination of the data collectively across measures demonstrates a significant trend in negative effects resulting from affiliation with an identified public relations practitioner. PR spokespersons and the organizations they represent were consistently ranked as less trustworthy, competent, and credible on the individual measures employed. This trend seems especially critical of the profession. Taken as a whole, the data confirms earlier suggestions that public relations professionals are faced with credibility problems that not only affect them but also the organizations they represent.
        In support of the Eagly et al. (1978) reporting bias thesis, the data shows that on specific measures participants judged sources announcing client-negative news as less credible than sources announcing client-neutral news. Specifically, information sources in the fuel-spill article were perceived as less expert and less informed than a source revealing client-neutral new.  The difference in competence may be explainable if considerations of message subject are taken into account. The Client-Neutral message was based on a company announcing a new computer microprocessor. In the article, the source explains the performance levels of the chip and discusses the chip's speed in megahertz. Microprocessor performance and megahertz are not topics with which most audiences would be familiar. A source using this industry-specific terminology therefore may seem to possess especially distinct and unique expertise that would result in ratings of the source in that area being artificially high. However, it is equally likely that the reporting bias attributed to the source in the client-negative message resulted in that spokesperson being perceived as less expert and knowledgeable. In fact, sources in the client-neutral message received expertise scores significantly above the median score, while sources announcing the fuel spill received scores near the median. In addition, both sources were ranked as informed, but the product announcement sources' scores were higher. These findings suggest that Client-Neutral message sources' scores were not artificially high but that the Client-Negative message sources' scores were purposely lower. 
        Focusing on the trustworthiness component of credibility, the findings again point to participants reacting to an organization's honesty rather than its representative's. Research participants ranked the organization in the Client-Negative message as significantly less trustworthy than the organization in the Client-Neutral message. Additionally, the honesty and the truthfulness of the organization in the negative message were also called into question, although the significances fell between the .10 and .05. Regardless, these finding follow the prediction of Eagly et al. (1978). It is interesting, however, that employees charged with communicating Client-Negative information were not perceived as untrustworthy. It would seem that audiences do not believe sources performing expected job duties deserve being labeled untrustworthy, but the organizations they represent are fair game for negative attitudes.  
        As with source effect findings, the rankings of message types in regards to each individual measure reveals a trend of Client-Negative message sources and the organizations they represent being perceived as less credible. The information sources in the Client-Negative message conditions were ranked most positively only five times out of 14 measures. Again, because few of the differences in means across the measures achieved significant difference, this finding can only be used as a call for more research in the area rather than a reason to unequivocally condemn sources and organizations announcing potentially company-harmful news.  
The strongest conclusion of this research may simply be a call for continued investigation of public relations practitioner credibility in the context of actual communication. Although, the study suggests that organizations and their public relations sources and those organizations and spokespersons communicating client-negative news seem to be lagging in terms of credibility compared to their experimental counterparts, this determination is not offered without qualification. Because not all results achieving statistical significance, this experiment should serve primarily as a prompt for continued investigation.
 At present, this study does not offer enough evidence to condemn public relations practitioners and negative news sources. From an industry standpoint, at worst the study reveals the lack of trust the public has in public relations practitioners and organizations they represent; at best, the findings provide evidence that public relations practitioners are no better as spokespersons than other in-house sources. Neither of these implications is particularly positive for the public relations industry and its practitioners. 
        In terms of the reporting bias findings, the study offers little guide to organizations preparing to announce negative news. If communicating negative news to audiences leads to assumptions the organizations are hiding some damning facts, few if any positive courses of action are available. Any organizational news communicated, truthful or not, is destined to lead to negative audience perceptions in situations where the organization may be at fault. It seems organizations dealing with potentially negative situations must simply take their knocks and hope to garner positive public support after the crisis passes.
        In summation, this study is consistent with research demonstrating that credibility varies across message source and message type. Priester and Petty (1995) as well as McCroskey and Young (1981) have stated that trustworthiness and competence determine a source's acceptance and effectiveness with an audience. The research presented here does nothing to undermine their claims. Likewise, the Eagly et al. (1978) belief that sources communicating messages hinged on audience acceptance are perceived as less credible is not rocked from its foundation. In fact, the study suggests that both credibility issues can translate from the actual individual spokesperson to the organization for whom they speak. 
Ultimately, this study supplements data garnered through surveys with new information outlining the credibility issues surrounding the profession. Public relations practitioners, students and instructors must recognize any hindrances that may affect a specialist's ability to perform his/her job. With continued experimental investigation of the message and source factors that influence credibility in addition to public opinion polling, the industry and academe alike can better prepare to mold the best possible communicators by arming practitioners with a stronger knowledge of the unique platform from which they speak. 

References
PR deserves its low credibility marks. (1999, August). O'Dwyer's PR Service Report, 6.
Behind the PRSA "Credibility Index." (1999, Fall). The Public Relations Strategist: Issues and Trends that Affect Management, 5, 12-13.
Berlo, D. K., Lemert, J. B., & Mertz, R. J. (1969). Dimensions for evaluating the acceptability of message sources. Public Opinion Quarterly, 33, 563-576.
Bovet, S. F., & Moore, E. H. (1994, October/November). Quest for top management acceptance continues. Public Relations Journal, 50, 27-29, 34-39, 43.
Boxer, S. M. (1994, June). PR world may never be angelic, but it could be better behaved. The Business Journal, 12, 6.
Durham, D. (1997). How to get the biggest bang out of your next spokesperson campaign. Public Relations Quarterly, 42 (1), 38-41.
Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Chaiken, S. (1978). Causal inferences about communicators and their effect on public opinion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 424-435.
Englehardt, E. E., & Evans, D. (1994). Lies, deception, and public relations. Public Relations Review, 20, 249-266.
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 
Harris, T. E. (1993). Applied organizational communication: Perspectives, principles, and pragmatics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Hovland, C. I., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 633-650.
McCroskey, J. C, & Young, T. J. (1981). Ethos and credibility: The construct and its measurement after three decades. Central States Speech Journal, 32, 24-34.
Newsom, D. A., Ramsey, S. A., & Carrell, B. J. (1993). Chameleon chasing II: A replication. Public Relations Review, 19, 33-47.
O'Keefe, D. J. (1990). Persuasion: Theory and research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Perloff, R. M. (1993). The dynamics of persuasion. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
PR deserves its low credibility marks. (1999, August). O'Dwyer's PR Service Report, 6.
Priester, J. R., & Petty, R. E. (1995). Source attributions and persuasion: Perceived honesty as a determinant of message scrutiny. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 637-654.
Reina, L. (1995, November 11). Who's reading newspapers? Editor & Publisher, 128, 24-25.
Reiss, T. (1997, September). There's no 'average' teacher. NEA Today, 16, 9.
Robinson, J. P., & Levy, M. R. (1996). News media use and the informed public: A 1990s update. Journal of Communications, 46 (2), 129-135.
Sallot, L. M., Cameron, G. T., & Lariscy, R. A. W. (1997). Professional standards in public relations: A survey of educators. Public Relations Review, 23, 197-216.
Saunders, M. (1993). Media distorts field's image. Public Relations Journal, 49, 8.
Sereno, K. K., & Hawkins, G. J. (1967). The effects of variations in speakers' nonfluency upon audience ratings of attitude toward the speech topic and speakers' credibility. Speech Monographs, 34, 58-64.
Sharpe, M. L. (1986). Recognition comes from consistently high standards. Public Relations Review, 12 (4), 17-25.
Sparks, S. D. (1993). Public relations: Is it dangerous to use the term? Public Relations Quarterly, 38 (3), 27-28.
Sumpter, R., & Tankard, J. W., Jr. (1994). The spin doctor: An alternative model of public relations. Public Relations Review, 20, 19-27.
Tuppen, C. J. S. (1974). Dimensions of communicator credibility: An oblique solution. Speech Monographs, 41, 253-260.
Turk, J. V. (1986). Forecasting tomorrow's public relations. Public Relations Review, 12 (3), 12-21.



















Table 1
Composite Ratings of Source and Company Attributes as a Function of Information Source and Message Topic
	
        Information Source      Message Topic
Measure                         	
        PR      Generic Negative        Neutral
                                	
Source is telling truthb,2      3.0 (.77)       3.2 (.86)       --      --

Source is credibleb,2   2.9 (.80)       3.2 (.96)       --      --

Source is honestb,1     4.0 (1.02)      4.2 (1.23)      --      --

Source is trustworthyb,1        3.9 (1.05)      4.2 (1.22)      --      --

Company is honesta,1    4.1 (1.21)      4.5 (1.29)      --      --	

Company is telling trutha,2     2.5 (.76)       3.0 (.87)       --      --	

Company is trustworthyb,1       4.0 (1.18)      4.3 (1.27)      --      --

Source is experta,1     --      --      4.2 (1.39)      4.7 (1.00)

Source is informeda,1   --      --      5.0 (1.37)      5.4 (.93)

Source is good spokespersonb,2  --      --      3.6 (.88)       3.8 (.86)

Company is trustworthya,1       --      --      4.0 (1.45)      4.4 (.93)

Company is honestb,1    -       --      4.1 (1.48)      4.5 (.97)

Company is telling truthb,2     --      --      2.6 (.93)       2.9 (.73)

        	
Note. All comparisons between means are horizontal. Standard deviations are presented in parentheses. Measures with superscript "a" are significant at .05. Measures with superscript "b" are significant at .10. Measures with superscript "1" were taken on seven-point scales anchored by the indicated adjective at 7 and the respective opposite at 1. Measures with superscript "2" were taken on 5-point Likert scale anchored by Strongly Agree at 5 and Strongly Disagree at 1. 
Table 2
Rankings of Information Source and Message Topic Conditions Across Measures of Credibility (1 = Most positive score)
	
                Mean Rank	
Independent Credibility Measure         	
        1       2       3       4
	
1. Company is trying to do what is best for society.            GD      GC      PD      PC  (GC=PD)
2. Company has honest intentions.                               GC      PC      PD      GD
3. Company does not have a hidden agenda.                       GD      PD      PC      GC
4. Company is telling the truth.                                GC      GD      PC      PD
5. Source is a good spokesperson.                               GC      PC      GD      PD
6. Source is telling the truth.                                 GD      GC      PD      PC
7. Source is a credible source.                                 GD      GC      PC      PD
8. Source is intelligent / unintelligent.                       PD      GC      PC      GD
9. Source is expert / inexpert.                                 GC      PC      PD      GD
10. Source is informed / uninformed.                            GC      PC      GD      PD
11. Source is honest / dishonest.                               GC      GD      PD      PC
12. Source is trustworthy / untrustworthy.                      GC      GD      PD      PC
13. Company is honest / dishonest.                              GC      GD      PC      PD
14. Company is trustworthy / untrustworthy.                     GC      PC      GD      PD ________________________________________________________________________

Note. GC = Generic Source, Client-Neutral message; GD = Generic Source, Client-Negative message; PC = PR source, Client-Neutral message; PD = PR Source, Client-Negative message. ANOVA revealed significant difference in mean ranking across information source type. Mean ranking of Generic Source = 1.9; mean ranking of PR Source = 3.1, F(1, 55) = 18.91, p < .001. ANOVA revealed significant difference in mean ranking across message topic type. Mean ranking of source in Client-Neutral message = 2.2; mean ranking of source in Client-Negative message = 2.8, F(1, 52) = 4.43, p < .05.
        PR Practitioners      25