Running head: MEDIATING ROLE OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Toward a Model of Engaged Publics: Trust, Satisfaction, and the Mediating Role of Public
Engagement for Supportive Behaviors
(Abridged Version of Doctoral Dissertation)
Minjeong Kang, Ph. D.
Syracuse University
March 1, 2012
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 2
Abstract
The quality of relationships between an organization and its public is a good indicator of the
public’s general attitude toward the organization. However, gaps exist between organizationpublic relationship quality and public’s actual supportive behaviors. To fill a critical missing link
between organization-public relationships and publics’ supportive behaviors, this study
investigates if public engagement, defined as a motivated affective state of individual members
of publics that drives their voluntary extra-role behaviors, connects evaluation of organizationpublic relationships to actual supportive behavioral outcomes. By focusing on the concept of
engagement, the purpose of the current study is to empirically test a theoretical model of public
engagement with two key antecedents, (i.e., relational trust and satisfaction) and its mediating
role between such antecedents and positive behavioral outcomes.
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 3
Toward a Model of Engaged Publics: Trust, Satisfaction, and the Mediating Role of Public
Engagement for Supportive Behavioral Outcomes
For nearly three decades of public relations scholarship, key goals of communication
management have been the strategic management of quality relationships between an
organization and its key publics (e.g., L. Grunig, J. Grunig, & Dozier, 2002; Ledingham &
Bruning, 2000). Since Ferguson (1984, August) called for research on organization-public
relationships (hereafter called OPR) in 1984, Ki and Shin (2006) noted in their systematic
review of past public relations research that the concept and theories of OPR have dominated
public relations research. More specifically, relationships between an organization and its publics
have been examined in terms of four key relational outcomes of trust, satisfaction, commitment,
and control mutuality and their subsequent effects (e.g., Hon & J. Grunig, 1999; Kang & Yang,
2010; Ki & Shin, 2006; Yang & J. Grunig, 2005; Yang, 2007). Previous research examined key
outcomes of OPR in relation to (a) favorable corporate/organizational reputation (e.g., Yang,
2007; Yang & J. Grunig, 2005); and (b) publics’ attitudes toward organizations and behavioral
supports (e.g., Bruning, 2000; Hong & Yang, 2009; Ki & Hon, 2007a; Kang & Yang, 2010).
As many corporate communication campaigns focus on achieving desirable effects on
publics such as increased awareness, knowledge, positive opinions, attitudes, and behaviors
(Dozier & Ehling, 1992), scholars (e.g., Hong & Yang, 2009) have argued that in order for such
communication campaigns to bring out intended effects, factors that provoke publics to engage
in communication with organizations need to be considered. In such an effort, Hong and Yang
(2009) examined the effects of satisfaction and reputation on organizational stakeholders’
communication behaviors and found the mediating role of company-customer identification on
the word-of-mouth intentions.
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 4
Filling this gap between conceptual relationship assessments and tangible behavioral
indicators of public support, the concept of public engagement has emerged in the contemporary
public relations practices (e.g., Breakenridge, 2008; Solis, 2010). With the emergence of social
media, publics have increasingly utilized this new form of active communication as a critical tool
of public engagement with organizations (e.g., Breakenridge, 2008; Scott, 2007; Weil, 2006).
Individual stakeholders are increasingly demanding to be active partners in many corporate
activities such as corporate social responsibility campaigns, because they are willing to
“contribute to society’s sustainability and well-being in partnership with business, government
and non-governmental organizations” (Edelman, 2009, March 5, par. 1). As organizations begin
to acknowledge the value of empowered individuals, who are willing to collaborate with
organizations as a critical partner for mutual success, the needs to engage publics as the integral
part of organizational operations and success have exponentially increased. Hence, the success of
organizations in this new public and media environment can be largely dependent on
organizations’ abilities to find ways to effectively and positively engage their stakeholders for
meaningful partnerships.
The concept of engagement is nothing new. In business and organizational context,
engagement has become a popular concept to develop efficient organizational communications
for employee motivation and leadership development. Also, in marketing communication,
customer engagement has been explored for product development and consumer relationships.
As the relationship perspective has become a dominating paradigm in marketing research,
concepts such as customer satisfaction, customer-brand commitment, identification, and
customer/brand engagement have become popular concepts in exploring the value of customerbrand relationships and the subsequent effects of nurtured relationships with customers on
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 5
supportive intentions or behaviors. Moving away from linear persuasion model of marketing
communication (Plummer, 2008), marketers and communication professionals alike have put
forth much effort to understand the changing world of customers and their expectations by
shifting the marketing emphasis to the “co-creation” of customer/public experiences (e.g.,
Rowley, Kupiec-Teahan, & Leeming, 2007). Common to these various understandings of
engagement is that engagement is a desirable condition that brings positive organizational or
marketing outcomes such as increased employee voluntary behaviors, consumer advocacy, and
customer loyalty.
Although public engagement has emerged as an important concept in contemporary
corporate and strategic communication context, the concept of engagement has suffered from the
lack of a clear theoretical definition. Without proper definition of the concept, professionals and
scholars alike have been jumping on the bandwagon to find ways to connect engagement with
more tangible customer outcomes such as return-on-investment (ROI), word-of-mouth (WOM)
behavior, purchase, or loyalty without much success. Our understanding of engagement so far
lacks serious theoretical deliberations as well as empirical support.
With the emergence of new tools such as web analytics that enable for marketers to
monitor and measure people’s activities online, engagement has emerged as a term that describes
the level and degree of activity people have with a brand or company. Common approaches
social media consultants or marketers suggest are equating engagement with the number of
clicks, mentions in the media, “linking, bookmarking, blogging, referring, clicking, friending,
connecting, subscribing, submitting inquiry forms and buying are all engagement measures at
various points in the customer relationship” (Odden, L. cited in Falls, J. “What is Engagement
and How do We Measure it? ” January 4, 2010). Despite the usefulness of such information to
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 6
some marketers, what these numbers represent are behaviors that are fragments of behavioral
outcomes of engagement but not engagement itself. Some PR professionals (e.g., KD Paine)
have proposed different levels of engagement measures to differentiate relationship-based
engagement from matrix-based engagement (“Measuring Engagement is Just Another Term for
Measuring Relationships,” January 4, 2010). The best way for the concept of engagement to
have conceptual and behavioral utility is to be conceptualized in a model that embraces both the
psychological and the behavioral components it implies (Macey & Schneider, 2008).
The current study reviews existing organizational and marketing literature on engagement
and adopts pertinent views into public relations research context by theoretically defining the
concept of public engagement; devising a methodologically sound measure for engagement; and
empirically examining the relationships between public engagement and other important
concepts in public relations research.
Literature Review
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online (2012), the intransitive verb “to
engage” means to pledge oneself; to begin and carry on an activity; to participate or to induce to
participate; or to give attention to something. As such, it carries meanings of both cognitive and
behavioral dimensions such as getting involved or participating in activities such as
conversation, discussion, or making a pledge to do some action. The concept of engagement has
been studied in various contexts such as organizational psychology, education, and consumer
psychology. Macey and Schneider (2008) defined engagement as having three components: trait
engagement, state engagement, and behavioral engagement. In their conceptual model of
engagement, Macey and Schneider suggested that trait engagement, a personality disposition of
individuals (i.e., positive outlooks of life and work in general), provides a perspective for
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 7
understanding the world. And, this trait engagement gets to be reflected in psychological state
engagement, and finally this psychological state engagement leads to behavioral engagement.
Similarly, Kahn (1990) also noted that personal engagement refers to “harnessing of organization
members’ selves to their work roles; in engagement, people employ and express themselves
physically, cognitively, and emotionally during role performance” (p. 694).
On the basis of Macey and Schneider’s (2008) and Kahn’s (1990) frameworks of
engagement, the current study discusses the concept of engagement in cognitive, affective, and
behavioral frameworks in relations with key antecedents and outcomes. More specifically, this
study proposes that public engagement is discriminant from OPR, which has been primarily
viewed as a cognitive concept (J. Grunig & Hung, 2002; Kang & Yang, 2010), and is
predominantly an affective concept. More importantly, focusing on trust and satisfaction as key
antecedents of engagement, the concept of public engagement is proposed as a crucial mediator
connecting key relational outcomes—trust and satisfaction– with a public’s supportive and loyal
behaviors.
Definitional and Measurement Issues
Although the concept of engagement has become a popular term both in practice and the
academic world, there are various conceptual and methodological concerns that hinder further
development of theories and practices on engagement. For instance, in March 2006, the
Advertising Research Foundation (ARF) defined customer/brand engagement as “turning on a
prospect to a brand idea enhanced by the surrounding context” (Plummer, 2008, p. 15).
Similarly, Brian Haven (Forrester, Marketing’s New Key Metric: Engagement, 2007 August 8)
has defined engagement as “the level of involvement, interaction, intimacy, and influence an
individual has with a brand over time (p. 5) ” from “a person’s participation with a brand,
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 8
regardless of channel, where they call the shots” (p. 5). As such, the working definitions of
engagement widely adopted by professionals lack conceptual clarity and utility at best.
Confusion also exists in academic literature. For instance, problems in the discussion of
engagement are often associated with vague definitions as discussed in Robinson and Perryman,
and Hayday (2004). Colbert and colleagues (2004) defined engagement in terms of heightened
motivational states of employees (Colbert, Mount, Harter, Witt, & Barrick, 2004, p. 603).
Similarly, Wellins and Conselman (2005) also defined engagement as an “illusive force that
motivates employees to higher levels of performance” (p. 1).
Closely connected to the definitional problems, there also exist issues with the measures
of engagement (Robinson et al., 2004). Contemporary measures of employee engagement are
often similar to already existing concepts such as commitment (e.g., Baumruk, 2004; Richman,
2006), satisfaction (e.g., Harter, Schmidt, & Hayes, 2002), organizational citizenship behaviors
(Robinson et al., 2004), or a compilation of four different categories: satisfaction, commitment,
psychological empowerment, and task involvement (Macey & Schneider, 2008). However,
scholars have pointed out such measures as problematic in that factors such as satisfaction, work
involvement, or commitment tap not a whole, but only some aspects of engagement (Macey &
Schneider, 2008). For instance, noting earlier works by Mathieu and Zajac (1990), Brown (1996)
concluded that task involvement is more like an antecedent of commitment rather than a
characteristic or consequence of organizational commitment.
Such definitional ambiguities of engagement and the operational overlaps with similar
concepts are especially problematic in their exclusion of engagement as a state that connotes
passion, commitment, or involvement (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Macey and Schneider argued
that a more precise definition of engagement should include absorption, passion, and affect but
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 9
not satisfaction, job involvement, and commitment as its central characteristics (p. 7). This
contention is echoed in Erickson’s (2005) view of engagement. Erickson (2005) noted
engagement is more than simple satisfaction or basic loyalty and argued that it is “about passion
and commitment-the willingness to invest oneself and expend one’s discretionary effort (p. 14)”
beyond what is required. Engagement is relatively persistent or stable (Schaufeli, Salanova,
Gonzalez-Roma, & Bakker, 2002; Macey & Schneider, 2008) with elevated emotional tone of
the state (Schaufeli et al., 2002) that involves two critical factors: attention (i.e., “how much
effort and time are spent”) and absorption (i.e., “how intense is the focus”) (Rothbard, 2001).
The current study adopts this prominent view of engagement with the affective aspects at
the core of its definition and suggests (a) positive affectivity, (b) affective commitment and (c)
empowerment as three key dimensions of public engagement. Therefore, public engagement in
this study refers to a psychologically motivated affective state of individual members of publics
that drives their voluntary extra-role behaviors. Public Engagement is characterized by affective
commitment, positive affectivity and empowerment that individual public experiences in
interactions with an organization over time that result in supportive behavioral outcomes.
Defining Engagement
Engagement as affective commitment. Affective commitment “reflects an emotional
attachment to, identification with and involvement in an organization” (Meyer & Smith, 2000, p.
320). Having received substantive attention in organizational research, affective commitment has
been identified as one of the important determinants of employee dedication and loyalty
(Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001). Unlike continuance and normative commitment that
connote some degree of reluctance to commitment based on calculation and circumstantial
conditions, affective commitment implies voluntary desires to commit (Bansal, Irving, & Taylor,
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 10
2004) and has been closely linked to the concept of engagement (e.g., Meyer & Allen, 1991;
Allen & Meyer, 1996).
Some scholars and practitioners have defined engagement in terms of organizational
commitment (e.g., Wellins & Conselman, 2005) as “to be engaged is to be actively committed,
as to a cause (p. 1).” And, affectively committed individuals tend to possess a sense of
“belonging and identification that increases their involvement in the organization’s activities,
their willingness to pursue the organization’s goals, and their desire to remain with the
organization” (Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001, p. 825). This emotional and affective
connection may result from “a psychological link” (Allen & Meyer, 1996, p. 252) or “a
psychological bond” (Gruen, Summers, & Acito, 2000, p. 320) between relationship partners,
which makes voluntary defection or disconnection less likely (Gilliland & Bello, 2002; Meyer &
Allen, 1997). The current study postulates affective commitment is a facet of engagement
characterized by emotional bonding and pride that brings additional efforts to sustain that
relationship.
Engagement as positive affectivity. Positive affectivity is largely considered as having
temperamental characteristics that are conducive to feeling joy, excitement, and other positive
feelings (Costa & McCrae, 1980) with links to outcome measures such as job satisfaction (e.g.,
Staw, Bell & Clausen, 1986; Staw & Ross, 1985). Characterized by “activated pleasant affect”
(Larsen & Diener, 1992, p. 31), positive affectivity and its definition are consistent with how
Schaufeli, Bakker, Hoogduin, Schaap, Kladler (2001) defined engagement in terms of positive
affective-motivational state of fulfillment that is typically noted by vigor, dedication, and
absorption. Similarly, Macey and Schneider (2008) suggested that positive affectivity connoting
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 11
“feelings of persistence, vigor, energy, dedication, absorption, enthusiasm, alertness, and pride”
(p. 12) is a central facet in the conceptualization and operationalization of engagement.
Similar understanding of positive affectivity to the concept of engagement can be found
in how some scholars refer to positive affectivity as passion, excitement, (Wellins & Concelman,
2005) or emotional engagement (Fleming, Coffman, & Harter, 2005). Shirom’s (2007) notion of
vigor is also similarly positioned to engagement as a persistent positive-affective state with the
feeling of cognitive liveliness as well as enhanced physical and emotional energy. As central as
it is to the understanding of engagement, definitions and measures of engagement without
tapping into the affective energetic state are not properly understanding and measuring the
concept of engagement in whole (Macey & Schneider, 2008). The current study postulates
positive affectivity is a facet of engagement that is characterized by six positive markers
(PANAS) (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988).
Engagement as empowerment. Closely linked with the concept of power, empowerment
has been largely considered equal to delegation or decentralization of decision-making power
(Burke, 1986; Kanter, 1983). Consequently, empowerment has been used interchangeably with
employee or public participation. Based on the theory of intrinsic task motivation, Thomas and
Velthouse (1990) argued that to empower is equal to “give power to” (p. 667) and suggested that
empowerment entails a sense of authorization, capacity, and energy, concluding that empowering
as “to energize” (p. 667) best captures the term as defined as motivational state.
Viewing empowerment as a motivational concept, Conger and Kanungo, (1988) proposed
enabling (empowering) individuals through enhancing self-efficacy. Bandura (1982) argued that
the self-perceptions of efficacy are central to human agency, impacting actions, cognitive
patterns, and emotional arousal. In other words, individual’s perception of self-efficacy or
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 12
efficacy judgment will affect how much effort and persistence is necessary for one to exert in a
given task and environment.
Empowerment is associated with many positive outcomes. For example, empowered
individuals tend to display high efficiency in their achievements, high level of energy and effort
in learning (Bandura, 1977); initiative and innovative behaviors (Block, 1987; Sprietzer, 1995);
and managerial effectiveness (Thomas & Velthouse, 1990; Sprietzer, 1995). Rothbard’s (2001)
view of engagement as psychological presence reflects close relations between efficacy and
engagement. This study adopts the view of empowerment as a motivational state that is internal
to individuals (Conger & Kanungo, 1988) and proposes empowerment represents a motivated
facet of engagement, both conceptually and operationally.
Antecedents of Public Engagement
Since the emergence of organization-public relationships (OPR) as the dominant
paradigm of public relations research, Hon and J. Grunig’s (1999) measures of OPR have been
adopted as the most prominent tool of measuring relationship quality between organizations and
publics, as Ki and Shin (2006) noted from past OPR research. Conceptualized as the outcomes of
a relationship formed between an organization and its publics (J. Grunig & Huang, 2000), Huang
(1997) initially defined OPR as in terms of four key outcomes: trust, satisfaction, commitment,
and control mutuality. Later, Hon and J. Grunig (1999) developed the widely used measurement
index of OPR with four relationship indicators and two relational types (i.e., communal and
exchange relationships).
However, there exist conflicting views on considering these four elements as equal
dimensions of OPR. For example, some researchers (e.g., Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Nooteboom,
Berger, & Noorderhaven, 1997; Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Tax, Brown, & Chandrashekaran,
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 13
1998; Ki & Hon, 2007b) have viewed commitment as a key outcome of trust or satisfaction. This
is similarly echoed in relational commitment defined as “an enduring desire to maintain a
valued relationship” (Moorman, Zaltman, & Deshpande, 1992, p. 23). This view is consistent
with engagement literature that view affective commitment as a facet of engagement. Similarly,
control mutuality, defined as the extent of the reciprocity by which publics’ opinions are shared
with an organization (J. Grunig & Huang, 2000), is viewed interchangeable with the notion of
empowerment of publics in managing an organization (Moore, 1986). Considering
empowerment is viewed as a facet of engagement, this study focuses on two key cognitive
OPR variables—i.e., trust and satisfaction—as the key antecedents of engagement.
Relational trust and engagement. Since the paradigm shift in marketing research to
relationship marketing, trust has been identified as the most important influencer in fostering
strong relationships between customers and organizations (Berry, 1995; Sirdeshmukh, Singh, &
Sabol, 2002). Dubbed as the “cornerstone” (Spekman, 1988, p. 79) of long-term relationships,
trust has been extensively studied across the disciplines including interpersonal relationships
(e.g., Canary & Cupach, 1988; Larzelere & Huston, 1980); relationship marketing (e.g., Berry,
1995; Moorman, Zaltman, & Deshpande, 1992; Morgan & Hunt, 1994; Smith, 1998); political
communication (e.g., Putnam, 1993, 1995); and organizational communication management
(e.g., Becerra, 1998; Bruning & Ledingham, 1999; Huang, 1997, 2001; Jo & Kim, 2003; Ki &
Hon, 2007a; Yang & J. Grunig, 2005; Yang, 2007).
Naturally, both conceptual and empirical studies found evidence to support the pivotal
role of trust as a key determinant of relational commitment (e.g., Nooteboom, Berger, &
Noorderhaven, 1997; Garbarino & Johnson, 1999; Tax, Brown, & Chandrashekaran, 1998),
loyalty (Gassenheimer, Houston, & Davis, 1998; Reichheld & Schefter, 2000; Sirdeshmukh et
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 14
al., 2002), and an essential element for strong relationships and sustainable market share (Urban,
Sultan, & Qualls, 2000).
Applying the concept of trust in public-organization contexts therefore calls for caution in
conceptualization and translating the construct, in any particular research setting. Trust, like
other theoretical concepts, has been diversely interpreted and defined. Some scholars have
broadly defined trust as one’s beliefs and expectations about a trustee’s desirable action (e.g.,
Sitkin & Roth, 1993) and others have defined trust more narrowly in terms of one’s cognitive
evaluation of others’ goodwill and reliability (e.g., Cummings & Bromiley, 1996; Ring & Van de
Ven, 1992). For example, Morgan and Hunt (1994) and Doney and Cannon (1997) emphasize a
cognitive and evaluative interpretation of trust that views trust evaluation and resulting behaviors
as subject to the influence of other situational factors. As the primary literature of OPR research,
Hon and J. Grunig (1999) viewed trust as one of the key components of quality relationships
between an organization and its publics, defining trust in terms of three dimensions: (a) integrity,
(b) dependability, and (c) competence.
Trust and engagement have been linked in extant literature. For instance, trust has been
identified as the most important factor that drives civic engagement. Fukuyama (1995) argued
that trust engenders spontaneous sociability, which means “the myriad forms of cooperative,
altruistic, and extra-role behavior in which members of a social community engage” (Kramer,
1999, p. 583). In Bowling Alone, Putnam also puts emphasis on trust as the determining factor
that has reduced civic engagement in American society since the 1960s (Putnam, 2000; Uslaner,
2000). According to Putnam (2000), trust and engagement are highly correlated across time and
individuals as two important facts of social capital. Based on Putnam’s proposition, trust and
civic engagement that manifest in the form of voluntary associations with membership
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 15
organizations are interrelated concepts. In organizational studies, trust in terms of perceived
organizational support has been closely linked to higher employee engagement (e.g., Saks,
2006). Therefore, based on the theoretical linkage predicted in the literature, the current study
proposes the following relationship between trust and engagement:
H1: Trust leads to enhanced public engagement with organizations.
Prior research in consumer trust shows that relational trust between consumers and
companies, customer loyalty, and positive word-of-mouth are positively associated (e.g.,
Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996). Therefore, the current study proposes that trust is a key
antecedent of public-organization engagement and that trust leads to supportive behavioral
outcomes such as WOM or loyalty intentions.
H2: Trust leads to positive behavioral outcomes that publics have toward organizations.
Relational satisfaction and engagement. Satisfaction has been extensively studied in
customer and organizational management literature as the key to both short- and long-term
organizational success (Henning-Thurau, & Klee, 1997) in terms of customer retention and
communicative behaviors (positive and negative WOM) and as one of the key outcomes of
relationships for decades (Garbarino & Johnson, 1999).
According to Anderson and Sullivan (1993), satisfaction is best understood as “a function
of perceived quality and disconfirmation – the extent to which perceived quality fails to match
pre-purchase expectations” (p. 126), and is best characterized as a post-evaluative judgment
based on the customer’s product or service experiences (Kotler, 1991). From the communication
management perspective, satisfaction is referred to as the belief about “the extent to which each
party feels favorably toward the other because positive expectations about the relationship are
reinforced” (Hon & J. Grunig, 1999, p. 3).
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 16
Satisfaction and engagement have been closely linked in literature. Some scholars (e.g.,
Harter et al., 2002) have conceptualized engagement and satisfaction as directly linked, if not
isophoric (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Engagement and satisfaction are not the same concept or
concepts in the same level (Macey & Schneider, 2008). Erikson (2005) pointed out there exist
essential differences between engagement and satisfaction because engagement implies
activation, but satisfaction implies satiation. This is also well noted in Kahn’s (1990)
engagement model with three psychological conditions that are necessary for engagement:
meaningfulness, safety, and availability. Kahn (1990) proposed psychological meaningfulness as
a required condition for engagement to occur. Defining psychological meaningfulness as “a
feeling that one is receiving a return on investments of one’s self in a currency of physical,
cognitive, or emotional energy” (p. 704-5), Kahn’s definition of meaningfulness is similar to
how satisfaction has been defined, in that it involves a perception or evaluation of experience in
terms of investment and returns. Macey and Schneider (2008) asserted that satisfied individuals
tend to display a higher level of engagement, characterized by feelings of energy and absorption,
indicating a causal direction from satisfaction to engagement. This study postulates satisfaction
is a key antecedent to engagement in that individuals need to have a satisfying relationship with
an organization before they become engaged with the organization.
H3: Satisfaction leads to enhanced public engagement with organizations.
The relationship between satisfaction and supportive behavioral outcomes, such as
loyalty (e.g., Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004) and WOM, (e.g., Anderson, 1998) are quite extensive in
literature. For instance, Kotler (1994) sums up the satisfaction-loyalty literature by noting that
customer satisfaction is the key to customer retention (p. 20). Similarly, Ravald and Gronroos
(1996) noted that customer satisfaction is one of the leading indicators of customer loyalty and
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 17
overall customer satisfaction is a better predictor of intentions to repurchase than overall or
inferred service quality. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed.
H4: Satisfaction leads to positive behavioral outcomes that publics have toward
organizations.
Positive Behavioral Outcomes
Positive word-of-mouth (WOM) support. Defined as “information communication
directed at other consumers about the ownership, usage, or characteristics of particular goods and
services and/or their sellers” (Westbrook, 1987, p. 261), word-of-mouth communication
(hereafter called “WOM”), has recently received renowned interests from scholars and
professionals. Some scholars have suggested that WOM is “a dominant force in marketplace”
(Mangold, Miller, and Brockway, 1999, p. 73) and the “ultimate test of the customer’s
relationship” (Bendapudi & Berry, 1997, p. 30). This trend is particularly interesting with
increasing use of social media by organizations to bring about the positive WOM behaviors
among customers. Positive WOM communication has been perceived as a valuable tool for
promoting purposes of a company’s products or services (Gremler, Gwinner, & Brown. 2001) as
people tend to view WOM communication more positively than promotional communication
efforts that are initiated by a firm (Herr, Kardes, & Kim, 1991).
Since Anderson’s (1998) call for more research on antecedents of WOM communication,
there have been many efforts by scholars to understand what may lead to increased customer
WOM behaviors. Gremler, Gwinner, & Brown (2001) examined the effects of customeremployee relationships on positive WOM and found that the interpersonal relationship between
customers and a service provider that are marked by trust resulted in greater positive WOM
behavior by customers. Brown, Barry, Dacin, and Gunst (2005) also proposed a comprehensive
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 18
model of the antecedents of positive WOM. In their study, Brown et al. (2005) found that
customer satisfaction and consumer identification led to positive WOM intentions and behaviors
and these links were both mediated and moderated by consumer commitment. Hong and Yang
(2009) reported positive corporate reputation along with customer satisfaction led to increased
WOM intentions among the customers.
Loyalty. The concept of customer loyalty has received extensive interests in marketing
history (Knox & Walker, 2001). For several decades, a primary objective of many marketing
strategies was to generate loyal customers; the level of customer loyalty to a brand has been used
as a whole or partial indicator of success for marketing campaigns, and of brand equity (Aaker,
1991; Knox & Walker, 2001). As the relationship marketing perspective dominates, the concept
of customer loyalty also has become paramount (Fournier & Yao, 1997) to effective relationship
management efforts. That is, first and foremost in relationship marketing is to create customer
loyalty; as a result, a stable, mutually profitable and long-term relationship is enhanced (Annika
& Gronroos, 1996). Echoing Fournier et al.’s (1997) argument that the loyalty concept needs to
reflect and “dimensionalize the types of sources of affect that may comprise and distinguish
loyalty responses (p. 452),” the current study attempts to explore the essentiality of an affective
notion of engagement on the formation of loyalty behaviors among the customers. For this study,
loyalty is delimited to supportive behavioral intention on the basis of perceived service quality
(Zeithaml, Berry, & Parasuraman, 1996). Zeithaml et al. found customers’ evaluation of service
quality lead to supportive behavioral intention as loyalty, which leads to customer retention and
competitive advantage.
The relationship between loyalty and engagement is evident in organizational research.
Salanova, Agut, and Peiro (2005), for example, reported that supportive organizational climate,
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 19
which is affected by organizational support and employee work engagement, led to better
employee performance and customer loyalty. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed to
test:
H5: Public engagement leads to positive behavioral outcomes such as positive WOM and
customer loyalty that publics have toward organizations.
Mediating Role of Public Engagement
Regardless of a strong connection between key relational variables (e.g., satisfaction and
trust) and customer supportive behaviors (e.g., loyalty), current literature do not strongly support
the direct linkage between satisfaction/trust and positive outcomes such as loyalty (Agho,
Mueller, & Price1992; Fournier, Dobscha, & Mick, 1998; Yim, Tse, & Chan, 2008). Fournier et
al. (1998) questioned the effectiveness of customer relationship programs by arguing that loyalty
in services is hard to achieve and predict (Agustin & Singh, 2005). Consequently, scholars (e.g.,
Fournier et al., 1998; McEwen, 2005; Yim et al., 2008) have suggested the importance of
building strong affective connections or bonds with the customers in order for firms to build
strong customer loyalty. For instance, Yim et al. (2008) applied the Sternberg’s (1986) triangular
theory of love (i.e., intimacy, passion, and commitment) as three components of love, and
suggested customer-firm affection as a mediating variable among trust, satisfaction, and loyalty.
Many (OPR) research examined the direct link between OPR quality and various outcomes such
as positive attitudes and positive reputations (e.g., Bruning, 2000; Hong & Yang, 2009; Ki &
Hon, 2007a; Kang & Yang, 2010). Surprisingly lacking is the affective component such as liking
or affection that may be the most important aspect of a good relationship. The study
conceptualizes public engagement as an affective concept and examines that the effects of two
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 20
important indicators of quality OPRs (i.e., trust and satisfaction) on supportive behavioral
outcomes are to be mediated by public engagement.
Research Question: To what extent does public engagement mediate effects of trust and
satisfaction on positive behavioral outcomes that publics have toward organizations?
Hypothesized Conceptual Model
This study proposes a theoretical causal model in which the quality of relational trust and
satisfaction influences publics’ positive behavioral outcomes to support organizations (i.e., H2
and H4 respectively). Also, as a critical missing linkage, public engagement is suggested as the
mediator between key relational outcomes (i.e., relational trust and satisfaction) and publics’
positive behavioral outcomes (i.e., H1, H3 and H5 respectively). This mediating model is tested
overall in terms of public engagement’s mediation effects (i.e., RQ1).
Method
Sample and Data Collection Process
The link to the online survey was emailed to 4,425 randomly selected current patrons of a
professional theatre organization in the United States. The sample included all donors, long-term
subscribers, and single-ticket buyers during the 2006 to 2010 seasons. The survey was conducted
for a week during the summer of 2010 and generated a random sample of 1084 complete cases
(n=1084) with response rate of 24.50 percent.1 As an incentive to participate in the survey, 10
randomly selected respondents were awarded monetary support (cash value of $200) that may be
used toward their yearly subscription for the next season.
To ensure ethical treatment of study participants, the study obtained approval through
Internal Review Board (IRB)’s review process. Each participant was fully informed of the
following information in the cover letter of the questionnaire: (a) the name of the investigators
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 21
and the organization carrying out the research; (b) the sponsorship or any conflict of interest; (c)
an accurate, though brief, description of the purposes of the research; (d) an accurate statement
of the extent to which answers will be protected with respect to anonymity; (e) assurance that
cooperation is voluntary; and (f) assurance that respondents can skip any questions they do not
want to answer. Further, participants’ responses were kept completely anonymous. The
questionnaire did not ask for any specific identifying information about the participants, except
for basic demographic information.
Among 976 research participants who answered the gender question, 721 participants
(73.90 percent) were female. The mode of the participants’ age was the age range from 46 to 55
(n=308; 31.50 percent). Frequency for other age ranges includes: 25 and Under (n=20; 2
percent); 26 to 35 (n=102; 10.40 percent); 36 to 45 (n=158; 16.20 percent); 56 and 64 (n=256;
26.20 percent); and 65 and Over (n=134; 13.70 percent). With regard to race/ethnicity, most of
the research participants reported they are Caucasian (n=920; 96.40 percent). Frequency for other
race/ethnicity categories includes: African American (n=19; 2 percent); Asian (n=10; 1 percent);
Hispanic/Latino (n=4; .40 percent); Native American (n=1; .10 percent); and Other (n=18; 1.80
percent).
Regarding the duration of research participants’ relationships as donors or patrons, the
mode was “Five Years or Longer” (n=560; 61.50 percent), suggesting many of the research
participants had substantial relationships with the organization studied. Previous public relations
research (e.g., Ki & Hon, 2007a) suggested research participants’ having substantial
relationships is critical to measure organization-public relationships. According Ki and Hon,
with minimal interactions and hence only second-hand relationships, individual variance on the
quality of organization-public relationships is difficult to observe. Frequency for other duration
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 22
categories includes: “Four Years” (n=64; 7 percent); “Three Years” (n=99; 10.90 percent); “Two
Years” (n=103; 11.30 percent); and “One Year” (n=85; 9.30 percent).
In terms of the type of research participants’ relationships with the organizations studied,
the mode was Current Single-time patron (other than donor) (n=596; 55 percent). Frequency for
other related categories include : Current donor (n=138; 12.70 percent); Current long-term patron
(other than donor) (n=277; 25.50 percent); Past donor (n=79; 7.30 percent); and Past patron
(other than donor) (n=259; 23.90 percent).
Measurement Instrumentation
In the hypothesized model, the researcher aimed to investigate relations between (a)
public engagement, a latent variable with three indicators (i.e., affective commitment, positive
affectivity and empowerment); (b) trust, a latent variable with two indicators (i.e., integrity and
competency); (c) satisfaction, a measured variable; and (d) positive behavioral outcomes, a latent
variable with two indicators (i.e., loyalty and positive word-of-mouth intentions). The
measurement level used for the close-end questions was Likert-type scales with seven-categories
ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree.”
Public engagement. This study defines the concept of public engagement in three
dimensions: affective commitment, positive affectivity and empowerment.
Affective commitment, conceptualized as emotional bonding and pride that brings
additional efforts to sustain organization-public relationships, was measured with three items
from Allen and Meyer (1996) and Bansal et al. (2004): “feel emotionally attached” (M=4.63;
SD=1.29); “feel like a part of family” (M=3.87; SD=1.27); and “feel a strong sense of
belonging” (M=4.01; SD=1.27). These three items loaded on one factor, which explained about
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 23
82.69 percent of shared variance. The resulting scale led to a Cronbach’s alpha of .89 (see Table
1 for descriptive statistics for all variables).
[Insert Table 1 here]
Positive affectivity, conceptualized as elevated emotional tone of the engagement state
(i.e., attention and energy), was measured with five items (Watson et al., 1988): “interested”
(M=5.48; SD=1.04); “attentive” (M=5.16; SD=1.14); “excited” (M=5.31; SD=1.14);
“enthusiastic” (M=5.39; SD=1.14)2; and “proud” (M=5.56; SD=1.17). The five items loaded on
one factor, which explained about 70.43 percent of shared variance. The resulting scale led to a
Cronbach’s alpha of .89 (See Table 1).
Finally, empowerment, conceptualized as self-efficacy and impact, was measured with
the modified five-item scale from Spreizer’s (1995) empowerment scale and Bandura (1977) and
Gist’s (1987) self-efficacy: “can make differences” (M=3.37; SD=1.25); “determined to develop
the org” (M=3.28; SD=1.27); “have a control over the org decision-making” (M=2.46; SD=1.23);
“confident about ability to improve the org” (M=3.00; SD=1.30); and “collaborate with the org”
(M=3.26; SD=1.37). These five items loaded on one factor, which explained about 69.65 percent
of shared variance. The resulting scale led to a Cronbach’s alpha of .89 (See Table 1).
The proposed thirteen-item scale of public engagement turned out to perform well with a
Cronbach’s alpha of .91. The proposed thirteen-item scale of public engagement retained three
theoretical dimensions clearly in exploratory factor analysis as shown in Table 2. The minimum
standardized factor loading was .66 in the item of “feel emotionally attached,” while
standardized factor loadings range from .66 to .87. (See Table 2 for the complete report). In
terms of validity, approximately 73 percent of total variance was extracted by the proposed
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 24
measurement system, suggesting this scale has sound explanatory power in explicating public
engagement.
[Insert Table 2 here]
Positive behavioral outcomes. The researcher defined the concept of positive behavioral
outcomes in two dimensions: loyalty and positive word-of-mouth intentions.
Loyalty, defined as supportive behavioral intention on the basis of perceived service
quality, was measured with the following four items modified from Zeithaml et al.’s (1996)
measure of supportive behavioral intentions: “my first choice to attend performances” (M=5.53;
SD=1.34); “attend more performances in the next few years (M=5.59; SD=1.16); “will continue
to attend performances if its prices increase somewhat” (M=5.46; SD=1.26); and “will continue
to attend performances even if experiencing a few problems” (M=5.30; SD=1.26). These four
items loaded on one factor, which explained about 59.51 percent of shared variance. The
resulting scale led to a Cronbach’s alpha of .77.
Positive word-of-mouth, defined as information communication directed at other
consumers about the organization and its service, was measured with the following four items
adopted from Brown et al.’s (2005) word-of-mouth (WOM) intentions: “encourage friends to
attend performances” (M=6.47; SD=.77); “encourage family members to attend performances”
(M=6.42; SD=.82); “recommend the org to someone who asks my advice” (M=6.42; SD=.81);
and “say positive things about the org and its performances to other people” (M=6.46; SD=.78).
These four items loaded on one factor, which explained about 87.48 percent of shared variance.
The resulting scale led to a Cronbach’s alpha of .89.
The proposed eight-item scale of positive behavioral outcomes turned out to perform well
in a Cronbach’s alpha of .88. Furthermore, the proposed eight-item scale of positive behavioral
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 25
outcomes retained two theoretical dimensions clearly in exploratory factor analysis. The
minimum standardized factor loading was .51 in the item of “my first choice to attend
performances,” while standardized factor loadings range from .51 to .92 (i.e., “encourage friends
to attend performances”).
Trust. Using existing measurement systems for trust from Morgan and Hunt (1994),
Ganesan (1994), and Hon and J. Grunig (1999), the researcher defined the concept of trust into
two dimensions: integrity and competency. Both dimensions have four measurement items.
Overall, research participants reported they have a higher level of competence (four-item
composite M=5.61; SD=.90) than integrity (four-item composite M=5.41; SD=.96).
To measure integrity, defined as the fairness and justice of the organization’s
management, the following four items were used: “treats patrons fairly” (M=5.85; SD=1.05);
“concerned about patrons” (M=5.10; SD=1.16); “sound principles guide management of the org”
(M=5.24; SD=1.10); and “does not mislead patrons” (M=5.46; SD=1.09). These four items
loaded on one factor, which explained about 75.33 percent of shared variance. The resulting
scale led to a Cronbach’s alpha of .89.
Additionally, to measure competence, defined as the extent to which individual patrons
believe the organization’s ability to achieve what is promised, the following four items were
used: “confident about service quality” (M=5.62; SD=1.00); “the org has ability to accomplish
what it says it will do” (M=5.50; SD=1.04); “the org is known to be successful” (M=5.65;
SD=1.01); and “competent in fulfilling patrons’ expectations” (M=5.67; SD=1.01). These four
items loaded on one factor, which explained about 79.05 percent of shared variance. The
resulting scale led to a Cronbach’s alpha of .91.
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 26
In terms of measurement reliability, the proposed eight-item scale of relational trust
turned out to perform well in a Cronbach’s alpha of .94. In exploratory factor analysis, the
minimum standardized factor loading was .74 in the item of “treats patrons fairly,” while
standardized factor loadings range from .74 to .86.
Satisfaction. Modifying Oliver’s (1980) measure of overall satisfaction and Hon and J.
Grunig’s (1999) measure of relational satisfaction, the researcher measured relational satisfaction
as a single dimension using three items. To measure relational satisfaction, defined as the overall
evaluation based on consumption experience with service over time, the following three items
were used: “generally speaking, pleased with the relationship with the org” (M=5.64; SD=1.01);
“satisfied with the org” (M=5.85; SD=1.08); and “delighted with the org” (M=5.51; SD=1.20).
These four items loaded on one factor, which explained about 85.01 percent of shared variance.
The resulting scale led to a Cronbach’s alpha of .91.
Statistical Procedures for Data Analysis
To analyze the data using structural equation modeling, a two-step process of latent path
modeling (Byrne, 2006; Hancock & Mueller, 2004)3 was conducted. The bootstrap procedure4
(1,000 samples) was used to generate a 95% confidence interval in testing the mediation effect of
public engagement for effects of trust and satisfaction on positive behavioral outcomes.
Statistical results were evaluated according to multiple data-model fit indexes5.
Data reduction. Before data analysis in SEM for hypotheses testing, the data was
reduced to composite variables using mean scores. For the merit of retaining the original
measurement units, mean composite scores were selected instead of factor scores. As shown in
Table 2, the variable of positive word-of-mouth support has the highest mean (M=6.44; SD=.74),
while the variable of empowerment has the lowest mean (M=3.08; SD=1.07). Correlations
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 27
among all nine tested variables are statistically significant at p < .001, ranging from r=.24
(Competence, Empowerment) to r=.81 (Integrity, Competence) (See Table 3).
[Insert Table 3 here]
Results
Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)
To analyze the data using structural equation modeling, a two-step process of latent path
modeling (Byrne, 2006; Hancock & Mueller, 2004) was conducted. First, in the measurement
phase, the researcher conducted initial confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) by imposing a model
where all factors are allowed to covary. Then, as Figure 1 shows, the researcher modified the
initial CFA model by covarying error variance between affective commitment and empowerment
(r=.33; p < .001).
Data-model fits in the initial CFA model and the final CFA model are as follows:
1. Initial CFA model: Chi-square (15, n=1084)=168.20, p < .001, χ2/df=11.21,
SRMR=.04, TLI (NNFI)=.92, RMSEA=.10 (90% Confidence Interval: .08, .11),
and CFI=.97.
2. Final CFA model: Chi-square (14, n=1084)=95.46, p < .001, χ2/df=6.82,
SRMR=.02, TLI (NNFI)=.95, RMSEA=.07 (90% Confidence Interval: .06, .09),
and CFI=.98 (see Figure 4-1).
3. Nested model comparison: Δ χ2=72.74, Δ df=1, p < .01.
By this modification, data-model fits were substantially improved (Δ χ2=72.74, Δ df=1, p
< .01). Based on the Hu and Bentler’s (1999) joint-cutoff criteria6, the final CFA model can be
retained as a valid model: CFI is larger than .96; SRMR is smaller than 1.0. Factor loadings in
the final CFA model range from .42 (from public engagement to empowerment) to .93 (from
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 28
relational trust to competence). Average variance extracted (AVE) has the largest value in
relational trust (AVE=.82; alpha=.94), while public engagement has the lowest value (AVE=.46;
alpha=.91). All factor loadings were statistically significant at p < .001.
[Insert Figure 1 here]
In terms of factor correlations, the range of the correlations expanded from .69
(Relational Trust, Public Engagement) to .83 (Relational Satisfaction, Relational Trust). All
factor correlations are statistically significant at p < .001 (See Table 4). As previously noted,
there was one covaried set of error variances between affective commitment and empowerment
(r=.33, p < .001).
[Insert Table 4 here]
Structural Model Analysis: Testing Hypotheses
Hypothesis 1: Effect of trust on public engagement. H1 posited relational trust between
individual patrons and the organization would lead to enhanced public engagement with the
organization. This hypothesis was supported: B=.48, S.E.=.06, β=.50, p < .001. This path turned
out to have the largest effect size among all relations of variables imposed in this study (see
Table 5).
[Insert Table 5 here]
Hypothesis 2: Effect of trust on positive behavioral outcomes. H2 posited relational trust
between individual patrons and the organization would lead to publics’ positive behavioral
outcomes to support the organization studied. The result partially supported this hypothesis. As
shown in previous Table 3, in the baseline model (with mediation of public engagement), effect
of trust on publics’ positive behavioral outcomes was statistically significant: B=.22, S.E.=.05,
β=.24, p < .001. However, as the researchers posited in RQ1 (i.e., mediation effect of public
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 29
engagement), due to a strong full mediation of public engagement, this effect became
insignificant—to almost null/independent—in the mediated model: B=.04, S.E.=.06, β=.04, ns.
Thus, it is noteworthy that public engagement strongly mediated the effect of relational trust on
publics’ positive behavioral outcomes to support the organization studied.
Hypothesis 3: Effect of satisfaction on public engagement. H3 posited relational
satisfaction between individual patrons and the organizations studied would increase public
engagement with the organization. This hypothesis was supported: B=.19, S.E.=.05, β=.23, p <
.001.
Hypothesis 4: Effect of satisfaction on positive behavioral outcomes. In addition to H3,
H4 posited relational satisfaction between individual patrons and the organizations studied would
lead to publics’ positive behavioral outcomes to support the organization studied. This
hypothesis was supported: B=.38, S.E.=.04, β=.50, p < .001. As in the path from relational trust
to public engagement, this path turned out to have a strong effect size. In both the baseline model
and mediated model, the effect of relational satisfaction on positive behavioral outcomes
remained statistically significant: β=.59 in the baseline model (p < .001); β=.50 in the mediated
model (p < .001).
Hypothesis 5: Effect of public engagement on positive behavioral outcomes. H5 posited
public engagement with the organizations studied would lead to positive behavioral outcomes to
support the organization. This hypothesis was supported: B=.37, S.E.=.05, β=.39, p < .001.
Testing RQ1 (Mediation Analysis of Public Engagement)
To the question of a mediation of public engagement, two structural models were
compared in a hierarchical/nested relation in terms of the χ2-df test: a model with structural paths
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 30
from public engagement and another model (i.e., the baseline model) without such paths, to
examine if the mediation model is statistically better than the baseline model.
The mediation model turned out to perform substantially better than the baseline.
According to Hu and Bentler’s (1999) joint-cutoff criteria, the baseline model is not acceptable:
χ2 (18, n=1084)=611.78, p < .001, χ2/df=33.99, SRMR=.25, TLI (NNFI)=.73, RMSEA=.18 (90%
Confidence Interval: .25, .18), and CFI=.86. Across all data-model fit criteria, it is clear that the
baseline model without mediating paths via public engagement is not tenable as a valid model.
However, when mediating paths via public engagement were added into the baseline model, its
performance was significantly improved so as to be retained as a valid model: χ2 (14,
n=1084)=95.46, p < .001, χ2/df=6.82, SRMR=.02, TLI (NNFI)=.95, RMSEA=.07 (90%
Confidence Interval: .06, .09), and CFI=.98. Thus, although the baseline model is more
parsimonious by 4 df (Δ df=4), the mediation model should be selected as a better model: 2change
(4, n=1084)=516.32, p < .001.
Also, the bootstrap procedure (1,000 samples) was used to generate a 95% confidence
interval, testing the mediation effect of public engagement for effects of trust and satisfaction on
positive behavioral outcomes. As previously noted, this study found a strong mediation of public
engagement between relational trust and positive behavioral outcomes: β=.20 (95% interval: .13,
.25), p < .01. The results suggest that the direct link between trust and positive behavioral
outcomes (β=.24, p < 001) were fully mediated by public engagement (β=.04, ns). Even though
the effect was not as much strong, the study also found a mediation of public engagement
between relational satisfaction and positive behavioral outcomes: β=.09 (95% interval: .09, .04),
p < .01.
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 31
Discussion
Contemporary public relations practice has increasingly emphasized the notion of public
engagement due to the changing nature of publics’ active communication behaviors and higher
expectations to collaborate with organizations. The discussion of engaged publics and their
potential influence on organizational success is especially pertinent in the era of social media.
With the emergence of social media, publics have increasingly utilized this new form of active
communication as a critical tool of engagement with organizations (e.g., Breakenridge, 2008;
Scott, 2007; Weil, 2006). Public relations research can benefit by being more reflective of
changes in the nature of publics who expect and demand organizations’ efforts to acknowledge
the essentiality of publics’ collaborations for the success of organizations. In this new public and
media environment, the success of organizations is largely affected by systematic, strategic
organizational efforts to engage publics as the integral part of organizational operations.
Publics are no longer content to be onlookers in public discourses. Rather, they actively
seek ways to be legitimate participants and to exert an influence. This entails both potential
benefits and problems to organizations, depending on how they manage their public relations
efforts with their key publics. In current public relations practice, the notion of engagement has
received a great deal of attention as the ultimate way to connect with publics. This study
introduced the concept of public engagement as the focal concept that connects the voids in
previous organization-public relationship research.
The goal of this dissertation was to (a) propose the concept of public engagement as an
essential component of public relations management that connects organization-public
relationships and public’s supportive behaviors. To that end, I conceptualized public engagement
in the context of public relations and measured public engagement using three indicators:
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 32
positive affectivity, affective commitment, and empowerment. More specifically, this study
defined the concept of public engagement as an affective connector that bridges two key
relational concepts (i.e., satisfaction and trust) and the subsequent publics’ supportive behaviors.
The introduction of public engagement as a predominantly affective concept that connects the
cognitive experiences to the more affective concept of loyalty and positive referral
communication behaviors demonstrates the importance of fostering intimate relationships with
the publics that are not just characterized by cognitive beliefs and assessments of relationship
quality. Identifying engagement with three core dimensions of affective commitment, positive
affectivity, and empowerment, the current study suggested reliable ways to measure public
engagement with 13 items. The proposed 13-item scale of public engagement had sound
reliability and validity and retained three theoretical dimensions clearly in exploratory factor
analysis.
This study also found significant mediation effects of public engagement between two
key relationship variables (i.e., relational trust and satisfaction) and positive behavioral outcomes
(i.e., loyalty and positive WOM support). The baseline model without public engagement turned
out to perform poorly with acceptable data-model fits. When public engagement was added into
the baseline model, this mediation model became tenable as a valid model across multiple datamodel fit indexes. The mediation analysis revealed that public engagement performed strong—
almost full mediation—mediation in effects of relational trust on publics’ positive behavioral
outcomes with significant mediation effect size.
This finding supports public engagement as being critical for linking public’s positive
evaluation of relationships with an organization to their actual supportive behaviors. The current
OPR literature is lacking in this regard. The main focus of relationship research has been limited
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 33
to examining the direct relationships between relationship indicators (namely, satisfaction, trust,
commitment, or/and control mutuality) and positive attitudes or supportive behaviors. This study
supports that publics’ cognitive evaluations of relationship quality (high level of satisfaction and
trust) are necessary conditions for publics to act out their beliefs on organizations to support the
organizations. However, the results support the introduction of public engagement in the model
is an important affective connector bridging the cognitive evaluations to publics’ supportive
actions. These findings indicate that publics’ supportive behaviors can be much more likely to be
created and further enhanced when they were affectively engaged with organizations.
Implications
Findings of the current study can offer insights on explication and operationalization of
engagement, which can be incorporated into different practice contexts. Public relations
professionals can utilize the three dimensions of public engagement to test which area of
engagement is lacking in their current efforts to be connected with their key publics. More
importantly, the results of this study indicate that organizational efforts can be most valuable
when they are focused on increasing public engagement by fostering positive feelings, affective
commitment, and a sense of empowerment. That is, getting satisfactory and reliable services or
goods is not sufficient for publics to become loyal with or an advocate for organizations. When
trust and satisfaction are present in the interactions between organizations and publics,
organizations have to work to develop a sense of a community that is centered on feelings such
as affection, pride, or empowerment. When publics become highly engaged with an organization,
their loyalty and supportive behaviors are likely to remain strong unless fundamental issues arise
with the organization that seriously undermine people’ level of trust and satisfaction.
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 34
Limitations and Future Research
Even though there are sound fits between data and the hypothesized structural model in
this study, it is still possible that the proposed model might have been misspecified to some
degree. Since a researcher cannot account for all potential causal elements in a hypothesized
model, the scope of this research had to be delimited into relational trust and satisfaction. This
study is only “exploratory” or “suggestive” in this regard; future studies can search for other
relevant precursors of public engagement than those used in this study.
There is also the issue of peculiarity of the organization studied. The organization in this
study has mixed characteristics of nonprofit and profit organizations and relies on financial
support from donors and loyalty from its patrons for its operation. To examine public
engagement in a valid, reliable manner, studying an organization with loyal/long-term donors
and patrons was essential. Nonetheless, the unique nature of the organization studied and the
sample might have influenced the results of this study and limit its general application across
different organizational contexts and stakeholders.
The scope of the current study was limited to the effects of trust and satisfaction on
loyalty and positive WOM that are mediated by engagement. However, it is important to note
that public engagement is not inherently a positive affect. In this study, consistent with how
engagement is conceptualized in organizational studies, engagement was viewed as the opposite
force of disengagement or burnout. For future study, the concept of public engagement can be
expanded to include negative aspects of engagement in its definition and measurement.
A future study can also include identification as an important factor in the overall
mediation model. Brand community literature supports individual customers’ degree of
identification with other members in the community might be an important factor that can affect
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 35
the effects of trust and satisfaction on the level of engagement. By examining social influence of
European car clubs, Algesheimer, Dholakia, and Herrmann (2005), for instance, noted that
individuals’ level of identification with the brand community brought out positive outcomes such
as increased engagement in brand community. Future research can further examine publicorganization identification in terms of its measurement or different model specification such as
effects of distrust or dissatisfaction on negative word-of-mouth behaviors.
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 36
References
Aaker, D. A. (1996), Building Strong Brands. New York: The Free Press.
Agho, O. A., Mueller, C. W., & Price, J. L. (1992). Discriminant validity of measures of job
satisfaction, positive affectivity and negative affectivity. Journal of Occupational and
Organizational Psychology, 65, 185-196.
Agustin, C., & Singh, J. (2005). Curvilinear effects of consumer loyalty determinants in
relational exchanges. Journal of Marketing Research, 42, 96–108.
Algesheimer, R., Dholakia, U. M., & Herrmann, A. (2005). The social influence of brand
community: Evidence from European car clubs. Journal of Marketing, 69 (July), 19–34.
Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1996). Affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the
organization: An examination of construct validity. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 49,
252-279.
Anderson, E.W. (1998). Customer satisfaction and word of mouth. Journal of Service Research,
1, 5-17.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Psychological
Review, 84, 191-215.
Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122147.
Bansal, H. S., Irving, P. G., & Taylor, S. F. (2004). A three-component mode of customer
commitment to service providers. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 32, 234250.
Baumruk, R. (2004). The missing link: the role of employee engagement in business success.
Workspan, 47, 48-52.
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 37
Becerra, M. (1998). Nature, antecedents, and consequences of trust within organizations: A
multilevel analysis within a multinational corporation. University of Maryland, College
Park, MD.
Bendapudi, N., & Berry, L. L. (1997). Customers’ motivations for maintaining relationships with
service providers. Journal of Retailing, 73, 15-37.
Berry, L. L. (1995). On great service: A framework for action. New York: The Free Press.
Block, P. (1987) The empowered manager. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Breakenridge, D. (2008). PR 2.0: New media, new tools, new audiences. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Pearson Education.
Brown, S. P. (1996). A meta-analysis and review of organizational research on job involvement.
Psychological Bulletin, 120, 235–255.
Brown, T. J., Barry, T. E., Dacin, P. A., & Gunst, R. F. (2005). Spreading the word:
Investigating antecedents of consumers’ positive word-of-mouth intentions and behaviors
in a retailing context.”Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 33,123–138.
Bruning, S. D. (2000). Examining the role that personal, professional, and community
relationships play in respondent relationship recognition and intended behavior.
Communication Quarterly, 48, 1-12.
Bruning, S. D., & Ledingham, J. A. (1999). Relationships between organizations and publics:
development of a multi-dimensional organization-public relationship scale. Public
Relations Review, 25, 157-170.
Burke, W. (1986) Leadership as empowering others. In S. Srivastra (Ed.), Executive power (pp.
51-77). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 38
Byrne, B. M. (2006). Structural equation modeling with EQS: Basic concepts, applications, and
programing. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis
Canary, D. J., & Cupach, W. R. (1988). Relational and episodic characteristics associated with
conflict tactics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 5, 305–325.
Colbert, A. E., Mount, M. K., Harter, J. K., Witt, L. A., & Barrick, M. R. (2004). Interactive
effects of personality and perceptions of the work situation on workplace deviance.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 599-609.
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: Integrating theory and
practice. The Academy of Management Review, 13, 471-482.
Costa, P., & R. McCrae. (1980). Influence of extraversion and neuroticism on subjective wellbeing: happy and unhappy people. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38,
668-678.
Cummings, L., & Bromiley, P. (1996). The organizational trust inventory. In R. M. Kramer and
T. R. Tyler (Eds.), Trust in organizations: Frontiers of theory and research (pp. 302330). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Dindia, K., & Canary, D. J. (1993). Definitions and theoretical perspectives on maintaining
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 163-173.
Doney, P. M., & Cannon, J. P. (1997). An examination of the nature of trust in buyer-seller
relationships. The Journal of Marketing, 61, 35-51.
Edelman, R. (2009, March). We’re entering a new era of mutual social responsibility. Retrieved
March, 17, 2010, from
http://www.edelman.com/speak_up/blog/archives/2009/03/were_entering_a.html
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 39
Erickson, T. J. (2005, May 26). Testimony submitted before the U.S. Senate Committee on
Health, Education, Labor and Pensions.
Falls, J. (2010, January 4). What is engagement and how do we measure it? Social Media
Explorer. Retrieved Oct 31, 2011 from http://www.socialmediaexplorer.com/socialmedia-marketing/what-is-engagement-and-how-to-we-measure-it/
Ferguson, M. A. (1984, August). Building theory in public relations: Interorganizational
relationships as a public relations paradigm. Paper presented to the Association for
Education In Journalism and Mass Communication, Gainesville, FL.
Fleming, J.H., C. Coffman & J.K. Harter (2005). Manage your human Sigma. Harvard Business
Review, 83 (7), 106- 115.
Fournier, S., & Yao, J. L. (1997). Reviving brand loyalty: A reconceptualization within the
framework of consumer-brand relationships. International Journal of Research in
Marketing, 14, 451-472.
Fournier, S., Dobscha, S., & Mick, D. G. (1998). Preventing the premature death of relationship
marketing. Harvard Business Review, (January-February), 42-51.
Fukuyama, F. (1995). Social capital and the global economy. Foreign Affairs, 74, 89-103.
Ganesan, S. (1994). Determinants of long-term orientation in buyer-seller relationships. Journal
of Marketing, 58, 1-19.
Garbarino, E., & Johnson, M. S. (1999). The different roles of satisfaction, trust, and
commitment in customer relationships. Journal of Marketing, 63, 70-87.
Gassenheimer, J. B., Houston, F. S., & Davis, J. C. (1998). The role of economic value, social
value, and perceptions of fairness in interorganizational relationship retention decisions,
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 26, 322–337.
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 40
Gilliland, D. I., & Bello, D. C. (2002). Two sides to attitudinal commitment: The effect of
calculative and loyalty commitment on enforcement mechanisms in distribution channels.
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 30, 24-43.
Gist, M. E. (1987). Self-Efficacy: Implications for organizational behavior and human resource
management. The Academy of Management Review, 12, 472-485.
Gremler, D. D., Gwinner, K. P., & Brown, S. W. (2001). Generating positive word-of-mouth
communication through customer-employee relationships. International Journal of
Service Industry Management, 12, 44–59.
Gruen, T. W., Summers, J. O., & Acito, F. (2000). Relationship marketing activities,
commitment, and membership behaviors in professional associations. Journal of
Marketing, 64, 34-49.
Grunig, J. E., & Huang, Y. H. (2000). From organizational effectiveness to relationship
indicators: Antecedents of relationships, public relations strategies, and relationship
outcomes. In J. A. Ledingham and S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations as relationship
management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public relations (pp. 2353). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Grunig, J. E., & Hung, C. (2002, March). The effect of relationships on reputation and reputation
on relationships: A cognitive, behavioral study. Presented at the PRSA Educators
Academy 5th Annual International Interdisciplinary Public Relations Research
Conference, Miami, FL. March 8-10.
Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., & Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective
organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 41
Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (2004). Path analysis. In M. Lewis-Beck, A. Brymann, & T. F.
Liao (Eds.), Sage Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods (pp. 802–806).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., & Hayes, T. L. (2002). Business-unit level relationship between
employee satisfaction, employee engagement, and business outcomes: a meta-analysis.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 268-79.
Haven, B., Bernoff, J., & Glass, S. (2007). Marketing’s news key metric: Engagement [White
paper]. Forrester. Retrieved March, 17, 2010, from
http://www.forrester.com/rb/Research/marketings_new_key_metric_engagement/q/id/42
124/t/2
Henning-Thurgau, T. & Klee, A. (1997). The impact of customer satisfaction and relationship
quality on customer retention: A critical reassessment and model development.
Psychology & Marketing, 14, 737-764.
Herr, P. M., Kardes, F. R., & Kim, J. (1991). Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute
information on persuasion: An accessibility-diagnosticity perspective. Journal of
Consumer Research, 17, 454-462.
Hon, L. C., & Grunig, J. E. (1999). Guidelines for measuring relationships in public relations.
Gainesville, FL: The Institute for Public Relations, Commission on PR Measurement and
Evaluation.
Hong, S., & Yang, S.-U. (2009). Effects of reputation, relational satisfaction, and customercompany identification on positive word-of-mouth (WOM) intentions. Journal of Public
Relations Research, 21, 383-403.
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 42
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A
Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55.
Huang, Y. H. (1997). Public relations strategies, relational outcomes, and conflict management
strategies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Maryland, College Park.
Huang, Y. H. (2001). Values of public relations: Effects on organization-public relationships
mediating conflict resolution. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13, 265-301.
Jo, S., & Kim, Y. (2003). The effect of web characteristics on relationship building. Journal of
Public Relations Research, 15, 199-224.
Kahn, W. A. (1990). Psychological conditions of personal engagement and disengagement at
work. The Academy of Management Journal, 33, 692-724
Kang, M., & Yang, S.-U. (2010) Mediation effects of organization-public relationships on public
intentions for organizational supports. Journal of Public relations Research, 22(4), 477494.
Kanter, R. M. (1983). The change masters: Innovation for productivity in the American
corporation. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Ki, E.-J., & Hon, L. (2007a). Testing the Linkages Among the Organization-Public Relationship
and Attitude and Behavioral Intentions. Journal of Public Relations Research, 19, 1-24.
Ki, E.-J., & Hon, L. (2007b). Reliability and validity of organization-public relationship
measurement and linkages among relationship indicators in a membership organization.
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 84, 419-438.
Ki, E.-J., & Shin, J.-H. (2006). Status of organization-public relationship research from an
analysis of published articles, 1985-2004. Public Relations Review, 32, 194-195.
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 43
Knox, S. D., Walker, D. (2001). Measuring and managing brand loyalty. Journal of Strategic
Marketing, 9, 111-128.
Kotler, P. (1994), Marketing Management. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kramer, R. M. (1999). Trust and distrust in organizations: Emerging perspectives, enduring
questions. Annual Review of Psychology, 50, 569-598.
Larsen, R. J., & Diener, E. (1992). Promises and problems with the circumplex model of
emotion. In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology: Emotion (pp.
25-59). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Larzelere, R. E., & Huston, T. L. (1980). The dyadic trust scale: Toward understanding
interpersonal trust in close relationships. Journal of Marriage and Family, 42, 595-604.
Ledingham, J. A., & Bruning, S. D. (2000). A longitudinal study of organization-public
relationship dimensions: Defining the role of communication in the practice of
relationship management. In J. A. Ledingham and S. D. Bruning (Eds.), Public relations
as relationship management: A relational approach to the study and practice of public
relations (pp. 23-53). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The meaning of employee engagement. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 1, 3-30.
Mangold, W. G., Miller, F., & Brockway, G. R. (1999).Word-of-mouth communication in the
service marketplace. Journal of Services Marketing, 1, 73-89.
Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1990). A review and meta-analysis of the antecedents, correlates
and consequences of organizational commitment. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 171–194.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary Online (2012). Engage. http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/engage
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 44
McEwen, W. J. (2005), Married to the Brand: Why Consumers Bond with Some Brands for Life.
Princeton, NJ: Gallup Press.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 61-89.
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1997). Commitment in the workplace: theory, research and
application. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Meyer, J. P., & Smith, C. A. (2000). HRM Practices and Organizational Commitment: Test of a
mediation model. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences, 17, 319-331.
Moorman, C., Zaltman, G., & Deshpande, R. (1992). Relationships between providers and users
of marketing research: The dynamics of trust within and between organizations. Journal
of Marketing Research, 29, 314–329.
Morgan, R. M., & Hunt, S. D. (1994). The commitment-trust theory of relationship marketing.
Journal of Marketing, 58, 20-38.
Nooteboom, B., Berger, H., & Noorderhaven, N. G. (1997). Effects of trust and governance on
relational risk. The Academy of Management Journal, 40, 308-338.
Oliver, R. L. (1980). A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction
decisions. Journal of Marketing Research, 17, 460-469.
Paine, K. D. (2010). Measuring engagement is just another term for measuring relationships.
KD Paine’s PR Measuremen Blog. Retrieved on November 20, 2011 from
http://kdpaine.blogs.com/kdpaines_pr_m/2010/01/measuring-engagement-is-just-anotherterm-for-measuring-relationships.html
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 45
Plummer, J. (2008, March). Engagement: What is it? Why should it matter? How can we
measure it? Retrieved February 9, 2010, from
http://www.customcontentcouncil.com/presentations/CPCNOPlummer.pdf
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions m modern Italy. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Putnam, R. D. (1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy,
6, 65-78.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Ravald, A., & Gronroos, C. (1996). The value concept and relationship marketing. European
Journal of Marketing, 30, 19-30.
Reichheld, F. F., & Schefter, P. (2005). E-Loyalty: Your secret weapon on the web. Harvard
Business Review, 78, 105-113.
Richman, A. (2006). Everyone wants an engaged workforce how can you create it? Workspan,
49, 36-39.
Ring, P. S., & Ven, A. H. v. d. (1994). Developmental processes of cooperative
interorganizational relationships. The Academy of Management Review, 19, 90-118.
Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization:
The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
825-836.
Robinson, D., Perryman, S., & Hayday, S. (2004). The drivers of employee engagement.
Institute for Employment Studies, Brighton.
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 46
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or depleting? The dynamics of engagement in work and
family roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655-684.
Rowley, J., Kupiec-Teahan, B., & Leeming, E. (2007). Customer community and co-creation: A
case study. Marketting Intelligence & Planning, 25, 136-146.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21, 600-619.
Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., Hoogduin, K., Schaap, C., & Kladler, A. (2001). On the clinical
validity of the Maslach burnout inventory and the burnout measure. Psychology &
Health, 16, 565-582.
Schaufeli, W. B., Salanova, M., Gonzales-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). The measurement
of engagement an burnout: A two-sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal
of Happiness Studies, 3, 71-92.
Schaufeli, W. B., & Bakker, A. B. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship
with burnout and engagement: A multi-sample study. Journal of Organizational
Behavior, 25, 293-315.
Scott, D. M. (2007). The new rules of marketing and PR: How to create a press release strategy
for reaching buyers directly. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Shirom, A. (2007). Explaining Vigor: on the antecedents and consequences of vigor as a positive
affect at work. In D. L. Nelson & C. L. Cooper (Eds.), Positive organizational behavior
(pp. 86-100). London: Sage.
Sirdeshmukh, D., Singh, J., & Sabol, B. (2002). Consumer trust, value, and loyalty in relational
exchanges. Journal of Marketing, 66, 15-37.
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 47
Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of legalistic “Remedies”
for trust/ distrust. Organization Science, 4, 367-392.
Smith, V. L. (1998). Distinguished guest lecture. The two faces of Adam Smith. Southern
Economic Journal, 65, 1–19.
Solis, B. (2010). Engage: The complete guide for brands and businesses to build, cultivate, and
measure success in the new web. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Spekman, R. E. (1988). Strategic supplier selection: Understanding long-term buyer
relationships. Business Horizons, 31, 75-81.
Sprietzer, G. M. (1995). Psychological empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions,
measurement, and validation. The Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.
Stafford, L., & Canary, D. J. (1991). Maintenance strategies and romantic relationship type,
gender, and relational characteristics. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 8,
217-242.
Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1985). Stability in the midst of change: A dispositional approach to job
attitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 469-480.
Staw, B. M., Bell, N. & Clausen, J. (1986). The dispositional approach to job attitudes: A
lifetime longitudinal test. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 56-77.
Sternberg, R. J. (1986). A triangular theory of love. Psychological Review, 93, 119-135.
Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of service
complaint experiences: Implications for relationship marketing. Journal of Marketing, 62,
60-76.
Thomas K. & Velthouse, B. (1990) Cognitive Elements of Empowerment: an interpretive model
of intrinsic task motivation Academy of Management Review 15, 666-681.
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 48
Urban, G. L., Sultan, F., & Qualls, W. (2000). Placing trust at the center of your internet
strategy,” Sloan Management Review, 42, 39–48.
Uslaner, E. M. (2004). Trust, civic engagement, and the Internet. Political Communication, 21,
223 - 242.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Cross-cultural convergence in the structure of
mood: A Japanese replication and a comparison with U. S. findings. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 127-144.
Weil, D. (2006). The corporate blogging book: Absolutely everything you need to know to get it
right. New York: PORTFOLIO.
Wellins, R. & Concelman, J. (2005, April). Engagement: Creating a culture for engagement.
Workforce Performance Solutions. Retrieved Dec 19, 2009, from
http://www.ddiworld.com/pdf/wps_engagement_ar.pdf
Westbrook, R. A. (1987). Product/consumption-based affective responses and postpurchase
processes. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 258-270.
Yang, S.-U. (2007). An integrated model for organization-public relational outcomes,
organizational reputation, and their Antecedents. Journal of Public Relations Research
19, 91-121.
Yang, S.-U., & Grunig, J. E. (2005). Decomposing organizational reputation: The effects of
organization-public relationship outcomes on cognitive representations of organizations
and evaluations of organizational performance. Journal of Communication Management
9, 305-326.
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 49
Yim, C.K., Tse, D.K., & Chan, K.W. (2008). Strengthening customer loyalty through intimacy
and passion: Roles of customer–firm affection and customer–staff relationships in
services. Journal of Marketing Research, 45, 741-756.
Zeithaml, V. A., Berry, L. L., & Parasuraman, A. (1996). The behavioral consequences of
service quality. The Journal of Marketing, 60, 31-46.
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 50
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Measurement Items on Public Engagement
Dimension
Item (n)
M
SD
α
Variance
Extracted
Affective
Feel emotionally attached (n=1011)
4.63 1.29 .89
Commitment
Feel like a part of family (n=1011)
3.87 1.27
Feel a strong sense of belonging (n=1002)
4.01 1.27
Interested (n=1008)
5.48 1.04 .89
Attentive (n=1006)
5.16 1.14
Excited (n=1013)
5.31 1.14
Enthusiastic (n=1007)
5.39 1.14
Proud (n=994)
5.56 1.17
Can make differences (n=1002)
3.37 1.25 .89
Determined to develop the org (n=999)
3.28 1.27
Have a control over the org decision-
2.46 1.23
Positive Affectivity
Empowerment
making (n=1002)
Confident about ability to improve the org
3.00 1.30
(n=997)
Collaborate with the org (n=992)
3.26 1.37
82.69%
70.43%
69.65%
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 51
Table 2. Exploratory Factor Analysis for Measurement Items on Public Engagement
Factor Loading
AC
%
α
1. Feel emotionally attached
.66
19.11%
.89
2. Feel like a part of family
.87
3. Feel a sense of belongings
.86
26.64%
.89
26.81%
.89
72.56%
.91
Item
EMa
PA
4. Interested
.82
5. Attentive
.77
6. Excited
.85
7. Enthusiastic
.85
8. Proud
.72
9. Can make differences
.76
10. Determined to develop the org
.79
11. Have a control over the org decision-making
.76
12. Confident about ability to improve the org
.87
13. Collaborate with org
.82
Total Variance Explained with overall α
Note. Extraction method was Principal Component Analysis with Varimax rotation.
a
EM=Empowerment; PA=Positive affectivity; AC=Affective commitment; %=Variance
extracted.
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 52
Table 3. Correlation Matrix of Measured Variables with Descriptive Statistics
Measured Variable
M (SD)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
1. Affective Commitment
4.17 (1.14)
1
2. Positive Affectivity
5.38 (0.94)
.59
1
3. Empowerment
3.08 (1.07)
.50
.36
1
4. Loyalty
5.55 (0.97)
.44
.47
.27
1
5. Positive WOM support
6.44 (0.74)
.34
.51
.14
.60
1
6. Integrity
5.41 (0.96)
.49
.48
.27
.54
.45
1
7. Competence
5.61 (0.90)
.45
.52
.24
.53
.50
.81
1
8. Satisfaction
5.67 (1.02)
.47
.53
.26
.61
.61
.73
.77
1
Note. Correlations for all variables are significant at p < .001.
Table 4. Correlations between Factors and Error Variances in the Final Confirmatory
Factor Analysis (CFA) Model (n=1084)
Correlated Factor/Error Variance
r
Relational Trust
Public Engagement
.69
Positive Behavioral Outcomes
Relational Trust
.73
Positive Behavioral Outcomes
Public Engagement
.75
Relational Satisfaction
Relational Trust
.83
Relational Satisfaction
Public Engagement
.65
Relational Satisfaction
Positive Behavioral Outcomes
.79
Error Variance of Affective Commitment
Error Variance of Empowerment
.33
Note. All standardized coefficients are significant at p < .001.
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 53
Table 5. Standardized Coefficient of Direct Effects in the Hypothesized SEM Model
(n=1084)
Independent Factor
Dependent Factor
H
B S.E.
β C.R. (Z)
Baseline Model
→ Positive Behavioral Outcomes
.22
.05 .24***
Relational Satisfaction → Positive Behavioral Outcomes
.44
.04 .59***
H1 .48
.06 .50***
Relational Trust
Mediated Model
Relational Trust
→ Public Engagement
Relational Trust
→ Positive Behavioral Outcomes H2 .04
Relational Satisfaction → Public Engagement
.06 .04
H3 .19
.05 .23***
Relational Satisfaction → Positive Behavioral Outcomes H4 .38
.04 .50***
→ Positive Behavioral Outcomes H5 .37
.05 .39***
Public Engagement
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001.
.72
.47
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 54
Figure 1. The results of the final measurement model with standardized path coefficients.
Note: χ2(14, n=1084)=95.46, p<.001, SRMR=.02, TLI (NNFI)=.95, RMSEA=.07 (90%
Confidence Interval: .06, .09), and CFI=.98. All paths are significant at ***p < .001.
Mediating Role of Public Engagement, 55
Endnote
1
The researcher conducted a full-scale pretest before the survey in this study. The researcher
administered a pretest of the proposed survey questionnaire to check the validity and reliability
of survey measurement instruments to 594 individual members of a nonprofit organization
(n=594) in the United States. This pretest clearly demonstrated sound levels of measurement
reliability and validity for all key variables and found supports for all hypotheses. Therefore, no
measurement instrument was modified for the actual data collection.
2
Since there were approximately three times more female research participants (n=721, 73.90
percent) than male participants, the researcher tested possible gender differences in the
measurement items of public engagement, using Independent-Samples T test. The results
indicate that female participants in general reported higher levels of positive affectivity and
empowerment than male participants. In case of affective commitment, male participants
reported higher level of engagement than female participants. However, such gender differences
were found to be statistically insignificant except only in the item of “enthusiastic” in positive
affectivity, t(962) = -2.26, p < .05.
3
First, in the measurement phase, the researcher conducted initial confirmatory factor analysis
(CFA) by imposing a model where all factors are allowed to covary. Because the data-model fit
for the initial measurement model was satisfactory, the researcher went to the structural phase.
Second, in the structural phase, the researcher compared the CFA model with the proposed
structural model in terms of data-model fits.
4
The bootstrapping method allows to correct non-normality/bias of the data, using repeated
random sampling observations with replacement from the data set and computing the statistic of
interest in each resample. In this case, using the original data set as a population reservoir, a
pseudo (bootstrap) sample of N = 1,000 persons was created by random sampling observations
with replacement from the data set. Then, on the replaced pseudo (bootstrap) sample (N = 1,000),
an empirical approximation of the sampling distribution of the statistic was generated and used
for hypothesis testing. This bootstrapping method will give the researcher the significance level
of each mediation effect, along with the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval.
5
According to Byrne (2006), Hu and Bentler (1999), and Kline (2004), a structural equation
model can be valid when (1) the value of χ2/df is less than 3; (2) the value of CFI (Comparative
Fit Index) is equal to or greater than .95; and (3) the value of RMSEA (Root Mean Square Error
of Approximation) is less than .08.
6
Hu and Bentler (1999) developed joint-cutoff criteria for fit indexes in a structural equation
model (SEM), which can be useful to test a tenable data-model fit. According to them, a SEM
model with CFI (i.e., Comparative Fit Index) ≥ .96 and SRMR (i.e., Standardized Root Mean
Square Residual) ≤ 1.0 or RMSEA (i.e., Root Mean Square Error of Approximation) ≤ .06 and
SRMR ≤ .10 can suggest that the fit between the data and the proposed model is tenable.