Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
publications
Article
Trust in Public Relations in the Age of Mistrusted Media:
A European Perspective
Ángeles Moreno 1, *, Ralph Tench 2and Piet Verhoeven 3
Citation: Moreno, Á.; Tench, R.;
Verhoeven, P. Trust in Public
Relations in the Age of Mistrusted
Media: A European Perspective.
Publications 2021,9, 7. https://doi.
org/10.3390/publications9010007
Academic Editor:
Carmen Marta-Lazo
Received: 19 December 2020
Accepted: 2 February 2021
Published: 16 February 2021
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
1Group of Advanced Studies in Communication, Department of Communication and Sociology,
Faculty of Communication, University Rey Juan Carlos, 28943 Fuenlabrada, Spain
2Department of Communication, Leeds Business School, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds LS1 3HB, UK;
r.tench@leedsbeckett.ac.uk
3Department of Corporate Communication, Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences,
University of Amsterdam, 1012 WX Amsterdam, The Netherlands; p.verhoeven@uva.nl
*Correspondence: mariaangeles.moreno@urjc.es; Tel.: +34-91-4887278
Abstract:
One of the core problems of misinformation and post-trust societies is, indeed, trust in
communications. The undermining of the credibility of media as the backbone of democratic societies
is becoming a serious problem that affects democracy, business and all kinds of public institutions and
organizations in society(ies). This paper explores perceptions of trust in key stakeholders involved
in communication on behalf of organizations. Findings are considered at the professional (macro),
departmental (meso) and individual (micro) level as well as considering the trusted role of non-
specialist communicators for organizations including internal and external spokespeople. Data were
collected from an online survey of 2883 respondents from 46 countries across Europe. Key findings
were at the macro level that: antagonism between management communication professionals and
journalists remains. The lowest trust in the profession is felt to be by the general public. At the meso
level, top executives are perceived to trust the department the most followed by journalists in second
place. External experts such as professors and consultants are perceived to be the most trusted by
the general public. Finally, at the micro level individuals are more trusted than organizations or
departments and the communication profession more widely.
Keywords:
post-trust; disinformation; trust; media credibility; gatekeepers; management
communication; strategic communication; public relations; journalism
1. Introduction
Today we live in a complex and ambiguous world, within which the public are losing
confidence in all kinds of institutions and in the role mass media plays as the “backbone
of democratic societies”. The new social media landscape holds the public in a state of
continuing uncertainty, because the parameters that allowed them to evaluate the reception
and scope of traditional news media have been eroded [
1
] (pp. 94–95). In many countries,
trust in the mass media and journalism has been declining [2–4]. If trustworthiness in the
context of media means the belief that the source provides information honestly, without
the purpose of manipulation [
5
], then the trustworthiness of news media is a subject that
has relevance in contemporary society and is open to significant debate. The undermining
of the credibility of media as the backbone of democratic societies is becoming a serious
problem that affects democracy [
2
], business and all kinds of public institutions and
organizations in society(ies).
According to the latest Eurobarometer from November 2018, 39 per cent of citizens
in the European Union show little or no confidence in the media, while only one in five
(19 per cent) has high confidence [
6
]. Both values were lower than in previous surveys.
This loss of trust might also be true for other communicators, especially those who com-
municate on behalf of companies and other types of organizations. This is a key challenge
Publications 2021,9, 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/publications9010007 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/publications
Publications 2021,9, 7 2 of 20
for the communication industry, as communicators need to be trusted by the people they
work for, e.g., top executives and (internal) clients [
7
–
9
], but they are also dependent on
the trust of the public with whom they interact to reach their goals and the gatekeep-
ers that bring them to their final audiences—journalists, bloggers, influencers. Today
diverse and competing media channels have the critical role of helping publics to obtain
organization-related information and fostering trust between the public and business and
other organizations [10].
Trust is critical to the functioning of our society at all levels and is especially central
to the practice of public relations [
11
], yet the topic has not been researched comprehen-
sively so far in our field. Trust has been largely researched in sociological, economic and
organization theory [
12
]. In this paper, we will approach trust in the PR/communication
field from a cross-disciplinary approach where the perspectives of New Institutionalism
(NI), Organization–Public Relations (OPR) and a European sociological application of
Luhmann’s theory to public relations are mainly focused. This paper explores percep-
tions of trust in key stakeholders involved in communication on behalf of organizations.
Findings are considered at the professional (macro), departmental (meso) and individual
(micro) level as well as investigating the trusted role of non-specialist communicators for
organizations including internal and external spokespeople.
The main objective and purpose of this study is twofold: first to explore the perception
of trust in public relations/communication in Europe across the different levels applied in
New Institutionalism theories—macro (the profession), meso (the department) and micro
(the individual practitioner). Second, to explore the concrete efforts to build organiza-
tional trust as a key task of communication functions in Europe. This main objective has
been broken down into three overarching research questions driven from the following
literature review
2. Literature Review
As underlined by Li’s [
13
] editorial for the launch issue of the Journal of Trust Re-
search, there are academic observations of a persistent lack of consensus about trust [
14
,
15
].
Following Lane [
12
] trust is a social phenomenon to be studied at interpersonal, interor-
ganizational and systemic levels. Most conceptions of personal trust share three basic
assumptions: that there will be a degree of interdependence between trustor and trustee;
that trust provides a way to cope with risk and uncertainty in exchange relationships
and the expectation that there will not be an abuse of the vulnerability resulting from the
acceptance of risk in the relationship. Trust is also something to be given or placed, it
may be placed in a person (micro), an organization (meso), and the broader structures
that affect roles and organizations, etc., (macro) such as codes of conduct, industry bodies,
relevant law and broader societal norms [
14
]. Nevertheless, theories began to diverge in
their identification of the foundation of trust or the social bases on which such expectations
must be established. These expectations are related to the model of human nature or social
interactions underlying theories. Divergences may also arise from the object of trust and
the context in which the relationship is situated. Those divergences have translated to
multidimensional concepts and typologies of trust as the dyad cognitive/affective which is
very common in interpersonal trust studies [
16
], or the multidimensional models based
on the context of expectations (i.e., fiduciary/competence), which are very common in
interorganizational trust studies.
Based on the main divergences, Lane [
12
] underlines three approaches from economics
and social sciences. First, the approach of calculative trust, based on the conception of
rational human beings that can take utilitarian decisions calculating the cost and benefits of
expectations in a relationship. Coleman [
17
] and other authors in this perspective have been
criticized for an ideologized view of the rational behavior. Second, the value or norm-based
trust approach, where the concept of solidarity and collectivity is placed at the center of
human life. Shared values and norms allow economic actors to support each other where
they share a community of trust. Fukuyama [
18
] is the recognized representative of this
Publications 2021,9, 7 3 of 20
perspective, with the concept of the family as the basic social structure in US society and
his argument that the level of trust of a country as the cultural factor for wellbeing and
competitiveness of a nation. Additionally, third, the approach of common cognitions as the
basis for trust. Common cognitions are defined as the rules that constitute the nature of
reality and the frames through which meaning is made. These frames are embodied in
expectations about social order in general and about the specific interactions with others.
The most extended and insightful theoretical analysis of trust has been put forward by
Luhmann [
12
] (p. 12). From his functionalist perspective, Luhmann bring complexity
like a fundamental otologic problem defined as a number of possibilities inherent in the
construction of a system. Where trust is present, possibilities for action and experience
increases, bringing more complexity to the social system but also multiplying the number
of possibilities to be reconciliated with its structure. Thus, trust for a sociologist is the most
effective way of reducing complexity. European public relations scholars have argued for
the application of Luhmann’s theory to the field of public relations to place the role of the
communication function at the core of organizational and social trust and underlining the
public relations role of increasing trust among different social systems (see p. 7).
2.1. Trust in the PR/Communication Professional Field
Public trust in professions can be understood as the degree to which the public believes
that professions will act serving and protecting the public’s interest. Although this view
is controversial when the public disagree about what is perceived to be in the public
interest [
19
]. Today, many professions are untrusted by the general population, with a
decline for those in business related professions including communicators [20,21].
Public trust in public relations practice is strongly related with the concepts of pro-
fession and professionalization itself. The construct of professionalization refers to the
process—undertaken either by an organization or an entire industry—of attaining a suffi-
cient level of quality and practice which is representative of excellence in a profession [
22
].
Although there have been numerous attempts to outline the parameters of professionaliza-
tion in public relations, none have resulted in true consensus among practitioners [
23
]. Yet,
as public relations theory and practice has developed at different rates around the world, a
broad understanding has been reached about the benefits associated with professionaliza-
tion, including respect, prestige, and a positive public image [24].
As public relations theory is rooted in different disciplinary fields, like mass commu-
nication, interpersonal/speech communication, (social) psychology, economics, sociology,
and in different schools of thought [
25
], scholarship in public relations has conceptualized
the professionalized occupation from diverse viewpoints including functionalist, structural-
ist and rhetorical perspectives to serve the public interest. For instance, public relations
as a field of practice has been explained as the provider of mutually beneficial and good
organizational relations [
26
–
29
]; social dialog, i.e., [
30
–
34
]; postmodern activism [
35
] or
social legitimation, i.e., [36,37].
However, despite public relations scholarship conceptualizations and the attempts of
the industry to be trustworthy [
38
], its intervention has often been understood as attempts
to manipulate the public sphere, i.e., [
39
–
41
]. The professional label itself is discredited
in Europe, affecting negatively the communicator’s reputation and the credibility of their
activities [
42
]. Thus, as there is a gap between scholar conceptualization and public
perception, public distrust for the PR profession can be attributed to a deficit of knowledge
or a lack of factual information [43] about the goals and principles of the profession.
No previous research has approached the relationship between trust and commu-
nication/public relations from a comprehensive view that implies the diverse levels of
institutionalism so far. The new institutionalism theory understands institutions as nor-
mative and regulative elements that provide stability and meaning to social life [
44
,
45
].
Institutional analysis can be approached from the macro, the meso and the micro level.
The micro level analysis is mostly concerned with individual and group actions and the
meso and macro levels connect the communication function with the organization and
Publications 2021,9, 7 4 of 20
with broader societal systems. Following this approach, this paper aims to explore trust in
the communication/PR practice from the macro level of the profession through the meso
level of the organizational functions of communication to the micro level of the individual
practitioner. Indeed, previous research indicates that trust differs between different levels
and stakeholders. Research in organizational trust in the business field, for instance, has
shown that there is a gap between the levels of trust in a particular business and trust in
the institution of business [
46
]. We want to test if different levels of trust can be also be
found in the communication/public relations field.
At the personal level, trust can be understood as a factor for effectiveness in the
managerial organizational setting. Trust is a key predictor of group accomplishment and
behavior as it is essential for motivation, information sharing; managers’ commitment
and efficient problem-solving by reducing uncertainty, i.e., [
47
]. More positively, trust is
linked to the social relations within which business transactions are embedded. Thus, trust
exists as a result of frequent interactions and previous trusting relationships [
48
]. High
interpersonal trust helps actors re-address power asymmetries, leading to high levels of
interorganizational commitment [
49
]. This means that the more frequent our interpersonal
relations with internal and external stakeholders, the more trust can be activated. For
instance, in the organization, chief communication officers (CCO’s) who have direct access
to the chief executive officer (CEO) should be able to establish more trust relations with
him/her than individuals who face barriers to access leadership positions, such as female
practitioners [
50
]. This effect of interpersonal experience has also been explained in the
relation between journalists and PR practitioners through two levels of status. The first is
the social normative level, where a competitive relationship is evidenced. The second is
the functional level, where task-oriented situations need a sense of cooperation between
individuals [
51
]. Journalists’ personal experience with public relations clearly matters. PR
professionals who journalists have worked with are better evaluated than the PR profession
as a whole, i.e., [8,52].
Thus, a broader approach at the macro, meso and micro levels may allow a deeper
understanding of the perception of trust in the field, and at the same time, those levels can
be seen completely differently from the diverse interest groups and contexts. Organization-
related information is delivered today through a broad range of diverse channels. Mediated
content is seen as a means towards the ultimate goal of creating and sustaining relation-
ships [
11
]. In this process, communication departments also try to establish cooperative
relationships with gatekeepers to ultimately enhance their relationship with their selected
audiences and stakeholders. Communication success depends on the trust of both in-
ternal and external publics, who the organization can reach either directly or through
identified gatekeepers.
Regarding internal stakeholders, trust can be seen as a mix of interpersonal and group
interactions, based on the expectations that an organization will be honest, meet commit-
ments and will not take advantage of others [
11
]. This approach introduces the concepts of
influence, mutual control and vulnerability [
53
] and the assumption of risk in stakeholders’
relationships [
54
]. Business research focuses on the importance of interpersonal trust
relationships for organizational effectiveness. Specially under conditions of uncertainty
and complexity, effective coordinated actions are only possible where there is mutual
trust. A considerable amount of managerial work is accomplished through interpersonal
interactions and the nature of the interpersonal relationships between managers and peers
have cognitive and affective dimensions that can determine effectiveness [16].
Research from interorganizational relations also brings useful ideas through the dual-
ism of vulnerability and power, including two dimensions of trust—based on goodwill the
other on competence, i.e., [
47
,
55
]. It is assumed that horizontal relationships may involve
trust and cooperation and vertical relationships power and compliance [
56
]. Combining
predictability and goodwill approaches can move towards a communicative conceptual-
ization of trust, as a process of sense-making [
57
]. Thus, trust is critical to the perception
of public relations departments as organizational sense-makers [
58
] and to the practice’s
Publications 2021,9, 7 5 of 20
primary purpose of establishing and maintaining relationships with key stakeholders of
the organization.
Today the vast majority of top-level European communication managers report di-
rectly to the CEO and hold divisional influence, meaning that organizational leaders trust
what communication departments recommend. Intraorganizational vertical and horizontal
relationships are a key factor for the accomplishment of communication work [58].
Regarding external stakeholders, previous research states that the general population
is critical about the communication/PR field, but not as much as they are about journalists
as traditional gatekeepers [
8
]. The constructivist process of mediated content between PR
and news media has been researched in public relations from the agenda building and
framing perspectives, i.e., [59,60].
Public relations intervenes in the process of public communication—mediating expe-
rience in the knowledge societies—by producing information prior to its publication as
media realities [
61
], but journalists have traditionally viewed PR practitioners negatively
for their role as advocates, or because of a lack of transparency and ethics [
62
]. Criticism has
also been explained by traditional rivalry and status inequality between the two, i.e., [
51
,
63
].
Nevertheless, more recent studies have found shared values and an improvement of the
relationship between the two professions, i.e., [55,64,65].
On the other hand, organizations can now directly target a broad spectrum of publics
online, in a way that was not possible previously through the news media. This Internet-
based communication landscape has also brought new gatekeepers to the public informa-
tion processes. As Bentele and Nothaft [
66
] state, in the virtual public sphere an organiza-
tion can no longer rely on being the only one who has access to publics. A new kind of
equality has emerged between communicative roles as public relations practitioners try to
manage the interplay with bloggers and influencers in the construction of information, but
there is no evidence of conflictual rivalry between these two groups so far [67].
2.2. Building Organizational Trust
Apart from the trust that the field of communication/PR can get for itself at the
three different levels, building and maintaining trust for organizations is one of the more
important tasks for PR/communication departments and consultancies. Research about
trust in public relations has mainly been described in Organizational–Public-Relations
(OPR) scholarship. As the practice becomes more focused on the contribution of building
and maintaining mutually beneficial relations to help corporate goals, trust has been
understood as a factor for achieving successful relationships with internal and external
stakeholders [
29
,
68
–
72
]. OPR has been defined from diverse perspectives, viewing it
objectively or subjectively and interpreting OPR from its antecedents or its consequences.
Trust has been placed in the center of the subjective experience when OPR is described as
the degree that the organization and its public trust, agree on, commit and feel favorably
toward each other [
68
]. From the diverse research focus, trust has been measured and
conceptualized threefold as an outcome, and as an antecedent or a mediating factor [7].
Nevertheless, one of the gaps identified in the OPR research is concretely the use of
trust as a key measurement of OPR. On the one hand, researchers assume that trust must
always exist between organizations and their publics, even though distrust has also been
found as a valid OPR quality measurement distinct from trust [
73
]. On the other hand,
researchers have failed to separate interpersonal and inter-organizational trust and between
internal and external publics in diverse contexts. The extended review and the proposal of
Cheng [
74
] of a new theory of Contingent Organizational Public Relations introduces the
dynamic of the actual relationship as opposed to an idealistic normative view, thus allowing
us to attend to the particular context of relationships. From this contingent perspective,
trust is constructed differently in diverse environments. Thus, we also believe that diverse
types of organization and geographical contexts should be considered in empirical research.
It is relevant to acknowledge that other studies on corporate values also suggest that the
highest score or being the best is not always advantageous. Luoma-aho’s study [
75
] on the
Publications 2021,9, 7 6 of 20
public sector in Finland demonstrated that holding a higher reputation is not always the
best strategy. In contrast to private sector goals, the public sector faces resource restrictions
that make it preferable to focus on a neutral reputation, to avoid the public having (too)
high expectations which are difficult to meet.
From a European sociological perspective, the responsibility of generating trust for
society could be placed on the public relations function, as has been conceptualized by
Holmström [
76
,
77
], based on Luhmann’s theory. For Luhmann the whole social order is
based on structures of expectations. Trust reduces complexity by ensuring that the social
system is based on mutual expectations about the future of behavior that would guide
actors’ actions [78]. Thus, organizations are evaluated on nothing but the communication
of their decisions [
79
] and have to be constantly prepared for trust checks [
74
]. Today,
in the uncertain 21st century, public relations can be conceptualized in this context as a
response to the contemporary uncertainties through its role of increasing trust among
different social systems as conceived by Luhmann [
80
–
82
]. Yet, achieving this important
role implies specific challenges for communication departments. We are going to focus on
the active subjects, the main goals and the main challenges to build trust for organizations.
Firstly, we want to know who the most trusted communicators on behalf of the orga-
nization are (subjects) from the perspective of communicator/PR practitioners. Communi-
cation and PR professionals are not the only people speaking on behalf of organizations.
More than ever one key role of communication departments is to enable other people inside
and to identify and select endorsers (supporters) outside the organization to speak on its
behalf [
58
]. The so-called “European educational role” [
83
] is increasing its importance as
communication management should be more a supporter for all levels of the organization
than a subsystem where communication is only performed by professionals [84].
Formal representatives, such as CEOs and board members or marketing and sales-
people, as well as other employees and members of the organization, play a role as well,
whether they are coached by practitioners or not. External experts in the field, customers,
fans and supporters, and even activists with overlapping interests can also endorse the or-
ganization. Knowing about different advocates and choosing or supporting them carefully
is an important part of strategic communication.
Literature suggests that professional organizational communicators such as marketing
and PR people engender low public trust [
11
,
85
]. On the contrary, there is an increasing
importance of other internal non-professional-communication supporter roles who rate
significantly higher than CEOs. This makes employees—who are seen “as a person like
me”—important channels and ambassadors for spreading messages about the organiza-
tion [
86
,
87
]. Moreover, employees with competence in specific knowledge and channels
are new potent corporate influencers [
87
]. Based on this understanding, enabling diverse
internal publics, instead of relying only on leaders, is becoming an important task for
communication departments [58].
On the other hand, outside the organization, with the virtual public sphere, organi-
zations can no longer rely on having exclusive access to publics. Wright and Hinson [
88
]
argued that social media provides a means for organizations to act transparently and
perceived that accuracy, credibility, honesty, trust and truth telling were enhanced through
social media use. Yet trust in the Internet is a hot issue in interpersonal and organiza-
tional relationships [
88
] and trust influences how stakeholders rationalize information
in social media [
89
]. Based on the same principle of trusting “a person like me” social
media channels have been argued to be more credible than traditional media because of its
authenticity. People value having more sources of information and believe that the public
is primarily responsible for dissemination of information [
87
]. Thus, the most credible
sources for audiences are knowledgeable friends, family and colleagues (36%) whereas
bloggers, forums and online communities show low credibility [85].
Secondly, we address the main goals and challenges for building organizational
trust. Previous research has identified a gap between the communication function of
enhancing trust for the organization and doing it for the whole profession or for concrete
Publications 2021,9, 7 7 of 20
organizational leaders [
42
]. Nevertheless, the current situation of social distrust in business,
media and all kinds of institutions make it important today to build trust from a broader
perspective and not only focused in the meso level of organizations.
After the last big global financial and economic crisis, which has been perceived
as a crisis of trust, communication management needed to strive to gain stakeholders’
trust not only at the meso-level of companies, but on different levels [
90
]. Along with the
benefit of relationships in OPR scholarship, literature has currently operationalized trust
as an independent variable to achieve reputation [
91
] and multiple organizational and
business goals, i.e., [
47
,
92
]. This complexity of the relationship between trust and other
outflows suggest that building trust through communication can be difficult and present
diverse challenges.
Although organizational trust has been operationalized more as an independent than
dependent variable, the literature identifies some key antecedents of trustworthiness as:
organizational openness and transparency [
93
–
95
]; dialogue [
96
]; corporate citizenship [
97
];
and credibility, reliability and benevolence [
11
]. Summarizing, communication needs to be
based on knowledge, and it should be transparent and ethical, too.
Contrary to the thinking of one of the most prominent contemporary philosophers
Byung-Chul Han [
98
] who states that transparency undermines real trust in today’s world,
corporate transparency has been assumed and embraced as a must to have for all kinds
of organizations. Corporate transparency can be evaluated through diverse factors and
dimensions [
11
,
97
], but neither trust nor transparency are easy in practice [
99
–
101
]. Today
there is an increasing gap between what organizations deliver and the public expectation
for companies to communicate about management behaviors and about the people who
lead organizations [
85
,
102
]. Previous research also suggests that European organizations
are not prepared to face hypermodern demands of transparency [103].
From the review of the literature, we propose the following hypotheses to address
the original research questions for the study about trust in communication/PR. All ques-
tions are measured against national context as well as the organizational type where the
respondent worked:
RQ1:
What is the perceived trust of European PR/communication professionals at the
professional, departmental, and personal performance levels by diverse key stake-
holders?
•Hypothesis 1 (H1).
Perceived trust varies in communication/PR and is higher for the
individual (micro) level than for the departmental (meso) and profession (macro) level.
•Hypothesis 2 (H2).
Perceived trust is diverse from different stakeholders: the per-
ceived trust of internal stakeholders, influencers and bloggers in the PR/communication
profession is higher than the perceived trust of the general public and journalists.
RQ2:
Who are the most trusted communicators by hierarchical level and gender on behalf
of the organization as perceived by communication professionals?
•Hypothesis 3 (H3).
Practitioners on higher hierarchical levels report a higher level of
personal trust than those on lower levels.
•Hypothesis 4 (H4).
Male practitioners report higher levels of personal trust than
female counterparts.
RQ3:
What are the most important goals and hurdles for building and maintaining trust in
European organizations?
•Hypothesis 5 (H5).
Enhancing trust in organizations is a more important goal than
enhancing trust in leaders or the overall sector.
•Hypothesis 6 (H6).
Transparency is the main challenge for building trust for organizations.
3. Materials and Methods
To answer the research questions and test the hypotheses, six questions about trust
were asked in the European Communication Monitor (ECM) 2019. The ECM is an annual
survey among PR and communication professionals in Europe.
Publications 2021,9, 7 8 of 20
3.1. Procedure and Sample
The online survey is an English language survey and was pre-tested with 67 communi-
cation professionals in 20 European countries. Amendments were made where appropriate
and the final questionnaire was on the ECM website for five weeks in February/March
2019. A large number of professionals throughout Europe were invited with personal
e-mails based on a database provided by the European Association of Communication
Directors (EACD). Additional invitations were sent via national research collaborators and
professional associations. In total, 2883 respondents completed the survey. Answers from
participants who could not clearly be identified as part of the population were deleted
from the dataset. This strict selection of respondents is a distinct feature of the ECM and
sets it apart from many studies which are based on snowball sampling or which include
students, academics and people outside of the focused profession or region. The evalu-
ation is then based on 2689 fully completed replies by communication professionals in
Europe. The sample consists of respondents that are communication leaders: 39.3 per
cent hold a top hierarchical position as head of communication in an organization or as
chief executive officer of a communication consultancy; 28.3 per cent are unit leaders or
in charge of a single discipline in a communication department. In total, 67.8 per cent of
the respondents have more than ten years of experience in communication management.
The average age is 42.5 years (SD = 10.62). Overall, 56.8 per cent of all respondents are
female and a vast majority (95.9 per cent) in the sample has an academic degree. More
than two thirds hold a graduate degree or a doctorate. Seventy per cent of the respondents
work in communication departments in organizations (joint stock companies, 19.9 per cent;
private companies, 23.1 per cent; government-owned, public sector, political organizations,
16.6 per cent; non-profit organizations, associations, 10.8 per cent), while 29.6 per cent are
communication consultants working freelance or for agencies. In total, 60.3 per cent of the
respondents report to work at a communication department that is aligned to the (top)
management of the organization. Overall, 26.2 per cent of the departments is strongly
aligned, and 13.5 per cent is weakly aligned to the management of the organization.
Communication professionals from 46 European countries participated in the survey.
Most respondents (31.4 per cent) are based in Southern Europe (countries like Italy, Spain,
Serbia, Croatia), followed by Western Europe (29.0 per cent; countries like Germany,
Belgium, Netherlands, Switzerland, France), Northern Europe (22.6 per cent; countries
like the United Kingdom, Sweden, Finland, Norway), and Eastern Europe (16.9 per cent;
countries like Poland, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Romania).
3.2. Questions, Variables and Analysis
Based on literature about trust in the communication profession (see theoretical discus-
sion in the literature review), six questions were asked in the survey about (1) the perceived
trust in the communication profession in general, (2) communication departments in or-
ganizations, (3) the communication person, (4) other communicators in the organization,
(5) the perceived relevance of building trust for organizations and (6) challenges of trust
building communication. All questions used a five-point Likert scale, from strong dis-
trust to strong trust. In the first three questions respondents were asked to assess trust in
the profession, departments, member of the general public, journalists, influencers and
bloggers and top executives in charge of leading the organization. In the question about
personal trust internal clients and colleagues and co-workers were added. In the fourth
question respondents were asked to assess the trust of the general public in communi-
cation and public practitioners themselves and the following six other communicators:
Marketing and sales representatives of the organization, leaders of the organization (CEOs,
board members, top executives), other employees/members of the organization, external
experts in the field (e.g., professors (academics), consultants), external supporters/fans
or customers/clients of my organization and activists and other external organizations
with their own agenda. Question five asked respondents to assess (not relevant to very
relevant) three relevant goals for building trust for their organization: (1) Enhance trust in
Publications 2021,9, 7 9 of 20
leaders of my organization, (2) enhance trust in my organization and/or its brands, and
(3) enhance trust in our market, business or sector of society. The sixth and last question
asked respondents to assess three challenges of trust-building communication that they
face in their organization, from never to always challenging: Being transparent (telling
what you know and disclosing contexts), being ethical (adhering to moral and normative
expectations), and being knowledgeable (based on facts and focused on problem-solving).
The six questions supplied several dependent variables on trust. Independent vari-
ables were individual demographics of the respondents, organizations and departments
they work in and country of residence. SPSS was used for data analysis. For all questions,
an ANOVA was performed on the dependent variable and the 22 countries with enough
respondents (n> 48), and the type of organizations respondents work in to test hypotheses.
If necessary, additional t-tests were performed to test specific hypothesized differences.
To test the overall hypothesis about the level of trust on the personal level compared to
departmental and professional level, first three trust indexes were created: (1) professional
trust, (2) organizational trust and (3) personal trust. The answers to the items of the
respective questions were summed and divided by the number of items. Subsequently two
paired sample t-tests were performed with the pairs; personal trust and professional trust;
and personal trust and departmental trust.
4. Results
4.1. Trust in the Profession
RQ1:
What is the perceived trust of European PR/communication professionals at the profes-
sional, departmental, and personal performance levels by diverse key stakeholders?
Answering hypothesis 1, the findings demonstrate that practitioners experience low
trustworthiness in the profession. On a five-point scale strategic communication pro-
fessionals perceive trust in their profession to be the highest among top executives of
organizations (M= 3.77, SD = 1.02) followed by influencers and bloggers (M= 3.35,
SD = 1.05
) and journalists (M= 3.15, SD = 1.07). Professionals think the general public
trust the PR/communications profession the least (M= 2.91, SD = 1.03). Hypothesis 2,
which stated that the perceived trust in the public relations/communications profession
was higher among influencers and bloggers than it was among journalists, is confirmed,
t(
−
9.728), p= <0.000, 95% CI [
−
0.24,
−
0.16]. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) shows that
there are significant differences in the trust levels between different European countries
(see Table 1) with trust higher in Northern and Western Europe than Southern and Eastern
Europe. Between different kinds of organizations (joint stock companies, private com-
panies, governmental organizations, non-governmental organizations and consultancies)
significant differences are found for trust by top executives and the general public, not for
influencers/bloggers and journalists (see Table 2).
Table 1.
Results of the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of country and trust in the profession by four
groups (between groups).
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
Top executives 71.503 21 3.405 3.248
<0.000
Total 2437.238 2319
Influencers/bloggers 70.28 21 3.347 3.050
<0.000
Total 2516.936 2251
Journalists 89.594 21 4.266 3.745
<0.000
Total 2,761,271 2366
General public 88.662 21 4.222 4.131
<0.000
Total 2437.238 2319
Publications 2021,9, 7 10 of 20
Table 2.
Results of the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of type of organization and trust in the
profession by four groups (between groups).
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
Top executives 16.044 4 4.011 3.842
<0.004
Total 2737.542 2611
Influencers/bloggers 6.899 4 1.725 1.548 0.186
Total 2792.858 2504
Journalists 10.451 4 2.613 2.274 0.059
Total 3029.412 2632
General public 26.1 4 6.525 6.238
<0.000
Total 2723.771 2583
4.2. Trust in Communication Departments
PR/communications professionals were asked for their perceived trust in commu-
nication departments/agencies by those interest groups that are critical for their success.
The perceived trust of the stakeholders they work for: the publics and people who use
the media; channels and events of the organization; journalists with whom they interact;
influencers and bloggers with whom they interact; and top executives and internal clients
for whom the departments work. On a five-point scale top executives score best (
M= 4.32,
SD = 0.861), journalists rank second (M= 3.95, SD = 0.834), followed by influencers and
bloggers (M= 3.85, SD = 0.928) and the general public (M= 3.85, SD = 0.891). The per-
ceived trust in communication departments is highest among the top executives and lowest
among the publics that use the communication channels and messages. An analysis of
variance (ANOVA) shows that there are significant differences in the trust levels between
different European countries (see Table 3) and between different types of organizations
(joint stock companies, private companies, governmental organizations, non-governmental
organizations and consultancies) (see Table 4).
Table 3.
Results of the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of country and trust in the communication
department by four groups (between groups).
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
Top executives 53.733 21 2.559 3.472
<0.000
Total 1773.229 2354
Influencers/bloggers 29.124 21 1.387 1.613
<0.039
Total 1688.32 1951
Journalists 50.499 21 2.405 2.895
<0.000
Total 1952.667 2311
Publics 39.62 21 1.887 2.39
<0.000
Total 1859.256 2326
Table 4.
Results of the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of type of organization and trust in communi-
cation departments by four groups (between groups).
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
Top executives 19.277 4 4.819 6.562
<0.000
Total 1938.961 2618
Influencers/bloggers 19.34 4 4.835 5.668
<0.000
Publications 2021,9, 7 11 of 20
Table 4. Cont.
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
Total 1879.863 2185
Journalists 10.52 4 2.63 3.165 0.013
Total 2147.642 2576
Publics 35.507 4 8.877
11.351
<0.000
Total 2056.341 2588
4.3. Personal Trust
RQ2:
Who are the most trusted communicators by hierarchical level and gender on behalf
of the organization as perceived by communication professionals?
Respondents were asked for the perceived trust in them on the individual level by
those who are critical for their success. Communication professionals depend on the trust of
journalists, bloggers, influencers, internal clients, organizational leaders, and the peers they
work with/for. On a five-point scale colleagues and co-workers score highest (
M= 4.61
,
SD = 0.700
), followed by the top leader of the organization (M= 4.48,
SD = 0.824
), internal
clients (M= 4.44, SD = 0.759), journalists (M= 4.13, SD = 0.792) and publics they have
direct contact with (M= 4.13, SD = 0.793), and influencers (M= 3.98,
SD = 0.833
). An
analysis of variance (ANOVA) shows that there are significant differences in the personal
trust levels between different European countries, except for influencers/bloggers (see
Table 5). Perceived personal trust levels between different types of organizations (joint
stock companies, private companies, governmental organizations, non-governmental
organizations and consultancies) differ significantly for all groups except journalists (see
Table 6). Professionals on higher hierarchical levels report a significant higher level of
perceived personal trust with all stakeholders, except with influencers/bloggers (see
Table 7). Hypothesis 3 is therefore partly confirmed (practitioners at higher levels have
higher trust than those at lower levels). Hypotheses 4 stated that male practitioners report
a higher level of personal trust than their female counterparts. This hypothesis is not
confirmed, the results show the opposite: Female practitioners report the same levels of
trust with internal stakeholders and higher levels of perceived personal trust for external
stakeholders, respectively for publics and people they talk to directly, t(2563) = 4.135,
p< 0.000
, 95% CI [0.069, 0.092], journalists, t(2224) = 3.575, p< 0.000, 95% CI [0.053, 0.181]
and influencers/bloggers, t(1876) = 4942, p< 0.000, 95% CI [0.113, 0.261].
Table 5. Results of the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of country and personal trust in by six groups (between groups).
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
Publics and people I talk to directly 25.263 21 1.203 1.928 0.007
Total 1451.294 2307
Journalists I work with 37.32 21 1.777 2.864 <0.000
Total 1352.708 2141
Influencers/bloggers I work with 17.17 21 0.818 1.156 0.282
Total 1216.544 1716
(Internal) clients 38.862 21 1.851 3.264 <0.000
Total 1347.792 2330
The top leader in my department/agency
41.138 21 1.959 2.873 <0.000
Total 1618.023 2334
Colleagues and co-workers 40.412 21 1.924 3.953 <0.000
Total 1196.514 2396
Publications 2021,9, 7 12 of 20
Table 6. Results of the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of type of organization and personal trust in by six groups (between groups).
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
Publics and people I talk to directly 10.158 4 2.54 4.058 0.003
Total 1615.333 2569
Journalists I work with 1.459 4 0.365 0.581 0.677
Total 1505.942 2398
Influencers/bloggers I work with 10.436 4 2.609 3.781 <0.005
Total 1336.804 1926
(Internal) clients 25.056 4 6.264 11.05 <0.000
Total 1491.008 2590
The top leader in my department/agency
22.318 4 5.58 8.316 <0.000
Total 1763.385 2599
Colleagues and co-workers 6.635 4 1.659 3.396 0.009
Total 1305.878 2664
Table 7. Results of the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of hierarchical position and personal trust in by six groups (between groups).
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
Publics and people I talk to directly 6.296 2 3.148 5.208 0.006
Total 1461.895 2410
Journalists I work with 14.936 2 7.468 12.512
<0.000
Total 1358.458 2253
Influencers/bloggers I work with 0.047 2 0.024 0.035 0.965
Total 1213.502 1807
(Internal) clients I’m working for 15.092 2 7.546 13.704
<0.000
Total 1352.562 2431
The top leader in my department/agency 42.398 2 21.199 33.921
<0.000
Total 1562.908 2435
Colleagues and co-workers in my department/agency 13.869 2 6.934 15.231
<0.000
Total 1,149,361 2496
4.4. Trust in Other Communicators
In addition to communication professionals, there are many others who can speak
on behalf of an organization, such as top managers, marketing professionals, all other
employees, external experts and/or customers or clients. PR/communication professionals
were asked to assess how much they think the general public in their country trusts the
other communicators from their organization. Professionals think, on a five point scale,
that external experts in the field (e.g., professors, consultants) are trusted the most by
the general public (M= 3.87, SD = 0.852), followed by the leaders of their organization
(CEOs, board members, top executives) (M= 3.80, SD = 0.929), external supporters/fans or
customers/clients of my organization (M= 3.75, SD = 0.834), other employees/members of
my organization (M= 3.70, SD = 0.841), themselves as communication and public relations
practitioners of my organization (M= 3.68, SD = 0.878), marketing and sales representatives
of my organization (M= 3.34, SD = 0.964 and activists and other external organizations
with their own agenda are thought to be trusted the least (M= 3.05,
SD = 0.979
). An
analysis of variance shows that there are significant differences between the different
European countries (see Table 8) and between types of organizations but not for leaders of
the organization, other employees and activists (see Table 9).
Publications 2021,9, 7 13 of 20
Table 8. Results of the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of country and trust in other communicators (between groups).
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
PR practitioners 28.383 21 1.352
1.773
0.016
Total 1741.139
2268
Marketing and sales representatives 64.1 21 3.052
3.356 <0.000
Total 2107.974
2268
Leaders of my organization (CEOs, board members, top executives)
40.364 21 1.922
2.222 <0.001
Total 1984.448
2268
Other employees/members 34.08 21 1.623
2.311 <0.001
Total 1612.046
2268
External experts (e.g., professors, consultants) 39.483 21 1.88
2.573 <0.000
Total 1681.462
2268
External supporters/fans or customers/clients of my organization 36.324 21 1.73
2.514 <0.000
Total 1,582,271
2268
Activists and other external organizations with their own agenda 72.414 21 3.448
3.688 <0.000
Total 2173.319
2268
Table 9. Results of the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of type of organization and trust on other communicators (between groups).
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
PR practitioners 11.68 4 2.92
3.807
0.004
Total 1945.162
2525
Marketing and sales representatives 29.71 4 7.428
8.075 <0.000
Total 2348.475
2525
Leaders of my organization (CEOs, board members, top executives)
5.231 4 1.308
1.518
0.194
Total 2177.239
2525
Other employees/members of my organization 0.273 4 0.068
0.096
0.984
Total 1784.499
2525
External experts in the field (e.g., professors, consultants) 7.3 4 1.825
2.523
0.039
Total 1830.953
2525
External supporters/fans or customers/clients of my organization 9.377 4 2.344
3.382
0.009
Total 1756.858
2525
Activists and other external organizations with their own agenda 2.658 4 0.665
0.694
0.596
Total 2418.206
2525
4.5. Building Trust for Organizations and Its Challenges
RQ3:
What are the most important goals and hurdles for building and maintaining trust in
European organizations?
Building trust for organizations is one of the most important tasks for PR/communica-
tion professionals. Respondents were asked to assess the relevance of three goals in trust
enhancement: enhancing trust in the leaders of the organization; enhancing trust in the
organization and its brands as an entity; and enhancing trust in the market, the business
or the sector of society the organization is operating in. Communication professionals
think enhancing trust in the organization (M= 4.50, SD = 0.814) and the broader context
of the organization (M= 4.26, SD = 0.942) more important than enhancing trust in the
leaders of the organization (M= 4.20, SD = 1.048). These results partly confirm hypothesis
5, that stated that building trust in the organization was considered a more important goal
than enhancing trust in the leaders. Not expected was that enhancing trust in the sector is
also perceived as more important than enhancing trust in the leaders of the organization.
An analysis of variance shows that there are no significant differences between European
Publications 2021,9, 7 14 of 20
countries about the goal of enhancing trust in the sector. Significant differences were found
on the other two goals (see Table 10). The same results were found for the differences
between organizational types (see Table 11).
Table 10. Results of the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of country and relevance of enhancing trust (between groups).
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
Enhance trust in leaders of the
organization 51.229 21 2.439 2.26 0.001
Total 2639.2 2419
Enhance trust in the
organization and/or its
brands
37.196 21 1.771 2.741 <0.000
Total 1587 2419
Enhance trust in market,
business or sector of society 27.429 21 1.306 1.494 0.069
Total 2123.555 2419
Table 11.
Results of the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of type of organization and relevance of enhancing trust (between
groups).
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
Enhance trust in leaders of the
organization 24.2 4 6.05 5.551 0.000
Total 2949.537 2688
Enhance trust in the
organization and/or its
brands
7.987 4 1.997 3.024 0.017
Total 1780.209 2688
Enhance trust in our market,
business or sector of society 4.049 4 1.012 1.141 0.335
Total 2384.335 2688
Building trust through communication can be difficult. Previous research shows
that communication needs to be based on knowledge, and it should be transparent and
ethical, too. Professionals were asked how challenging it is to meet these criteria in
communication. Being transparent (hypothesis 6) in communication, telling what you
know and disclosing context, is seen as the most important challenge by communication
professionals (M= 3.30, SD = 1.206 on a five-point scale). Being knowledgeable, based
on facts and focused on problem-solving ranks second (M= 3.11, SD = 1.278), and being
ethical, and adhering to moral and normative expectations is considered the most easy
challenge to address (M= 2.80, SD = 1.352). An analysis of variance on country shows
that there are significant different thoughts about this across Europe (see Table 12) and in
different kind of organizations (see Table 13).
Publications 2021,9, 7 15 of 20
Table 12.
Results of the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of country and challenges of trust building communication (between
groups).
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
Being transparent 154.644 21 7.364 5.248 <0.000
Total 3519.266 2419
Being ethical 450.91 21 21.472 12.96 <0.000
Total 4423.998 2419
Being knowledgeable 315.015 21 15.001 9.872 <0.000
Total 3958.81 2419
Table 13.
Results of the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of organization type and challenges of trust building communication
(between groups).
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F p
Being transparent 34.701 4 8.675 6.013 <0.000
Total 3907.182 2688
Being ethical 79,539 4 19.885 11.039 <0.000
Total 4914.321 2688
Being knowledgeable 37.158 4 9.29 5.724 <0.000
Total 4,392,858 2688
4.6. Different Trust-Levels Compared
Trust in the communication professional as a person (M= 4.27, SD = 0.54) is perceived
as being higher than trust in the communication departments (M= 3.97, SD = 0.65) and
in the communication professional in general (M= 3.28, SD = 0.65). These differences are
significant; personal trust versus departmental trust, t(1661) = 22.043, p= < 0.000, 95% CI
[0.276, 0.330] and personal trust versus trust in the profession, t(1641) = 54.634, p= < 0.000,
95% CI [0.949, 1.019].
5. Discussion
This paper has presented discussions on the findings about trust from practitioners’
perceptions at a macro (the profession), meso (the departmental) and micro (the individual)
level. Contextualized in literature debates about trust in the communication profession,
six questions were asked about (1) the perceived trust in the communication profession in
general, (2) communication departments in organizations, (3) the communication person,
(4) other communicators in the organization, (5) the perceived relevance of building trust
for organizations, and, finally, (6) challenges of trust building communication. When
considering how practitioners perceive trust in their profession (macro level) the hypoth-
esis (H2) that internal stakeholders, influencers and bloggers are perceived to trust the
public relations/communications profession more than journalists was confirmed. This
supports some of the cynicism discussed in the literature and reaffirms that the modest
antagonism between the communication profession and journalists still remains. This
is in line with early and more recent literature about the relationship between the two
professions [51,52,63–65].
At the meso level of departments, there are some positive reinforcements for depart-
ments and some worrying findings. On the upside top executives are perceived to trust
the department the most followed by journalists in second place. The lowest trust is felt
to be by the publics that use the communication channels and messages. This finding
resonates with the skepticism of the public often found in the literature [91]. At the micro
individual level of personal trust, respondents were asked about how they are trusted by
the individuals they have direct relations with such as journalists, bloggers, influencers,
internal clients, organizational leaders and the peers they work with and for. The results
Publications 2021,9, 7 16 of 20
were skewed towards trust from internal stakeholders starting at the top with the internal
organizational leaders, next by internal clients, then externally with journalists followed
by publics they are directly in contact with and finally influencers. This seems logical
in the context of the literature saying that frequent interactions and previous trusting
relationships lead to higher trust levels [48,49].
There are grade or level influences on the trust perceptions with those in higher
hierarchical (H3) positions reporting significantly higher levels of personal trust with all
stakeholders, with the exception of bloggers and influencers. Perhaps more positively,
the gender differences predicted from the literature discussions were not confirmed (H4).
Female practitioners report the same levels of trust with internal stakeholders and higher
levels of perceived personal trust for external stakeholders. The additional area of interest
and focus away from the professional communicators themselves was to explore how
others are perceived to be trusted by the general public who communicate on behalf of
organizations. This category includes representatives such as the top internal managers,
marketing colleagues, other employers within the organization, external experts and then
customers or clients. Coming out clearly as the most trusted from the communication
professionals’ perspective were external experts in the relevant field, such as professors or
consultants followed by the leaders of the organization, with activist and other external
organizations with their own agenda felt to be the least trusted. This fits with the literature
saying that experts and ‘a person like me’ (H4) are most trusted by audiences [11,80].
Building trust (H5) for organizations is an important core task for PR/communication
professionals, and the results support that building trust is considered more important than
enhancing trust in the leaders of the organization. Being transparent (H6) in communication
and telling what you know and disclosing context, is seen as the most important challenge
by communication professionals. On who to trust, significant differences were found with
individual practitioners rating themselves more highly trusted than the organization or
department they represent and certainly over the profession more generally. This raises
areas for future research and exploration that look more deeply at how the interactions
and communication of the individual the organization and the practice as a whole are
perceived, understood and trusted.
6. Conclusions
The levels of trust in the individual practitioners themselves are perceived to be higher
than trust in the organization’s department and in the communication profession more
generally. Results suggest that the more frequent interpersonal relations we have with
internal and external stakeholders, the more trust can be activated.
This paper has approached for the first time the relationship between trust and com-
munication/public relations from a comprehensive view that implies the diverse levels of
institutionalism. Following the approach of new institutionalism applied to communication
management, most of the research about trust has been approached from a meso-level per-
spective. The meso-level is above the individual and below the general societal system and
allows studying organizations and communication functions from a deeper perspective. In
that level, research provides rational arguments about the benefits and recommendations
for the construction and maintenance of trust. Differentially, this paper brings a view of the
complete spectrum that identifies where the main issues about trust in public relations and
communication can be located. The results support new institutionalism’s understanding
of institutions as normative and regulative elements that provide stability and meaning to
social life. Macro levels should connect the communication function with the organization
and with broader societal systems. A complete institutionalized perspective brings new fo-
cus for the public relations and communications profession(s) and show the elephant in the
room regarding the role of professional associations and practitioner bodies in facilitating
the connections between societal systems.
Important challenges also emerge in the perception of trust of diverse roles communi-
cating on behalf of organizations in a context of declining trust in mass media, journalism,
Publications 2021,9, 7 17 of 20
business and institutions. This is a key challenge for the communication industry, as
communicators need to be trusted by the people they work for, but they are also dependent
on the trust of the public with whom they interact to reach their goals and the gatekeepers
that bring them to their final audiences—journalists, bloggers, influencers. Moreover, this
lack of trust is also a key challenge for post-trust societies with an increasing proliferation
of fake news and strategically planned misinformation. As Bentele and Seidenglanz [
61
]
state: “The construction of public communication involves the production of information
by public relations prior to their publication on the one hand, the selection and construction
processes which create media realities on the other hand. As mediated information is
usually not directly or immediately verifiable, trust—particularly public trust—appears to
gain more relevance in such societies than it does in others. For the same reason, individual
political and economic actors as well as corporate agents (organizations) increasingly rely
on the attribution of (public) trust (p. 49)”. The authors of this paper expect to have taken
a step forward following Valentini’s suggestion [
81
]: “(
. . .
) it is hoped that the results
encourage the scientific community to embrace the involvement of peripheral actors to
support the advancement of public relations research in general and, more specifically, in
relation to trust in new, broader and more pertinent territories” (p. 16).
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, original draft preparation Á.M.; conceptualization, review
and editing and validation: R.T. methodology, formal analysis, data curation: P.V. All authors have
read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding:
The ECM is organized by the EUPRERA and EACD with the support of Cision, Fink and
Fuchs and Communication Directors.
Data Availability Statement:
Data supporting reported results can be found in www.communication-
monitor.eu.
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design
of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or
in the decision to publish the results.
References
1.
Kruckeberg, D.; Tsetsura, K. The “Chicago School” in the global community: Concept explication for communication theories
and practices. Asian Commun. Res. 2008,5, 9–30.
2.
Fišer, S.Ž.; Mišiˇc, K.U. Trust in media and perception of the role of media in society among the students of the University of
Maribor. Public Relat. Rev. 2015,41, 296–298. [CrossRef]
3.
Coronavirus: Parliament’s Green Light for New Resources; European Commission: Brussels, Belgium, 2020. Available online:
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/IP_20_685 (accessed on 2 February 2021).
4.
Turcotte, J.; York, C.; Irving, J.; Scholl, R.M.; Pingree, R.J. News Recommendations from Social Media Opinion Leaders: Effects on
Media Trust and Information Seeking. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 2015,20, 520–535. [CrossRef]
5.
Eisend, M.; Knoll, S. Transnational trust in advertising media. In Handbook of Research on International Advertising; Edward Elgar
Publishing: Cheltenham, UK, 2012; Chapter 20; pp. 439–454.
6.
Commission européenne. Eurobaromètre Standard 90—Automne 2018: Les Habitudes Médiatiques Dans l’Union Européenne; Rapport,
Novembre 2018; Commission européenne, Direction générale communication: Brussels, Belgium, 2018; Available online:
http://bit.ly/ecm2019ref2 (accessed on 4 May 2019).
7.
Seidenglanz, R.; Bentele, G. Das Verhältnis von Öffentlichkeitsarbeit und Journalismus im Kontext von Variablen. In Schwierige
Verhältnisse; Springer VS: Wiesbaden, Germany, 2004; pp. 105–120.
8.
Hoffjann, O.; Seidenglanz, R. Allmächtige PR, ohnmächtige PR. Die doppelte Vertrauenskrise der PR.; Springer VS: Wiesbaden,
Geramny, 2018; pp. 1–14.
9. Larsson, L. Public trust in the PR industry and its actors. J. Commun. Manag. 2007,11, 222–234. [CrossRef]
10.
Cacciatore, M.A.; Meng, J.; Boyd, B.; Reber, B.H. Political ideology, media—Source preferences, and messaging strategies: A
global perspective on trust building. Public Relat. Rev. 2016,42, 616–626. [CrossRef]
11.
Rawlins, B.L. Trust and PR Practice; Institute for Public Relations: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2007; Available online: http://bit.ly/ecm2
019ref10 (accessed on 4 May 2019).
12.
Lane, C. Introduction: Theories and issues in the study of trust. In Trust within and between Organizations, Conceptual Issues and
Empirical Applications; Lan, C., Bachman, R., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1998; pp. 1–30.
13.
Li, P. Editorial essay: The rigour, relevance balance for engaged scholarship: New frame and new agenda for trust research and
beyond. J. Trust Res. 2011,1, 1–21.
Publications 2021,9, 7 18 of 20
14.
Colledge, B.; Morgan, J.; Tench, R. The concept(s) of trust in late modernity, the relevance of realist social theory. J. Theory Soc.
Behav. 2014,44, 481–503. [CrossRef]
15.
Kramer, R. Organizational trust: Progress and promise in theory and research. In Organizational Trust: A Reader; Kramer, R., Ed.;
Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2006; pp. 1–20.
16.
McAllister, D.J. Affect-and cognition-based trust as foundations for interpersonal cooperation in organizations. Acad. Manag. J.
1995,38, 24–59.
17. Coleman, J.S. Foundations of Social Theory; Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1998.
18. Fukuyama, F. Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity; Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995.
19.
Jamal, K.; Bowie, N.E. Theoretical considerations for a meaningful code of professional ethics. J. Bus. Ethics
1995
,14, 703–714.
[CrossRef]
20.
Harris Interactive. The Harris Poll Confidence Index. 2009. Available online: https://theharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/20
17/12/Harris-Interactive-Poll-Research-Conf-Institutions-2009-03.pdf (accessed on 29 April 2020).
21.
Nuremberg Institute for Market Decisions. Annual report. 2019. Available online: https://www.nim.org/en/publications/
annual-reports (accessed on 29 April 2020).
22.
Yang, A.; Taylor, M. A global perspective on public relations professionalism: Mapping the structure of public relations
associations’ international networks. J. Mass Commun. Q. 2014,91, 508–529. [CrossRef]
23. Merkelsen, H. The double-edged sword of legitimacy in public relations. J. Commun. Manag. 2011,15, 125–143. [CrossRef]
24.
Molleda, J.C.; Moreno, Á.; Navarro, C. Professionalization of public relations in Latin America: A longitudinal comparative study.
Public Relat. Rev. 2017,43, 1084–1093. [CrossRef]
25.
Ihlen, Ø.; van Ruler, B. How public relations works: Theoretical roots and public relations perspectives. Public Relat. Rev.
2007
,33,
243–248. [CrossRef]
26. Grunig, J.E.; Hunt, T.T. Managing Public Relations; Holt, Rinehart and Winston: New York, NY, USA, 1984.
27.
Ledingham, J.A.; Bruning, S.D. Relationship management in public relations: Dimensions of an organization-public relationship.
Public Relat. Rev. 1998,24, 55–65. [CrossRef]
28.
Sallot, L.M.; Lyon, L.J.; Acosta-Alzuru, C.; Ogata Jones, K. From aardvark to zebra: A new millennium analysis of theory
development in public relations academic journals. J. Public Relat. Res. 2003,15, 27–90. [CrossRef]
29.
Hon, L.C.; Grunig, J.E. Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public Relations; Institute for Public Relations: Gainesville, FL,
USA, 1999.
30.
Heath, R.L. A rhetorical theory approach to issues management. In Public Relation Theory II; Routledge: Abingdon, UK, 2006; pp.
63–99.
31. Kent, M.L.; Taylor, M. Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relat. Rev. 2002,28, 21–37. [CrossRef]
32. Taylor, M.; Kent, M.L. Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. J. Public Relat. Res. 2014,26, 384–398. [CrossRef]
33. Macnamara, J.R. Public Relations: Theories, Practices, Critques; Pearson: Melbourne, Australia, 2012.
34.
Pieczka, M. Dialogue and critical public relations. In The Routledge Handbook of Critical Public Relations; Routledge: Abingdon, UK,
2015; pp. 100–113.
35. Holtzhausen, D.R. Postmodern values in public relations. J. Public Relat. Res. 2000,12, 93–114. [CrossRef]
36.
Holmström, S. Reframing public relations: The evolution of a reflective paradigm for organizational legitimization. Public Relat.
Rev. 2005,31, 497–504. [CrossRef]
37.
Wæraas, A. On Weber: Legitimacy and Legitimation in Public Relations. In Public Relations and Social Theory: Key Figures, Concepts
and Developments; Ihlen, Ø., Fredriksson, M., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 18–38.
38. Bourne, C. Trust, Power and Public Relations in Financial Markets; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016.
39. Moloney, K. Trust and public relations: Center and edge. Public Relat. Rev. 2005,31, 550–555. [CrossRef]
40.
Moloney, K.; Jackson, D.; McQueen, D. News journalism and public relations: A dangerous relationship. In Journalism: New
Challenges; Fowler-Watt, K., Allan, S., Eds.; Centre for Journalism & Communication Research, Bournemouth University:
Bournemouth, UK, 2013; pp. 259–381.
41.
Demetrious, K. Sanitising or reforming PR? Exploring “trust” and the emergence of critical public relations. In The Routledge
Handbook of Critical Public Relations; L’Etang, J., McKie, D., Snow, N., Xifra, J., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2015; pp. 101–116.
42.
Zerfass, A.; Verhoeven, P.; Tench, R.; Moreno, A.; Verˇciˇc, D. European Communication Monitor Empirical Insights into Strategic
Communication in Europe. Results of an Empirical Survey in 43 Countries; EACD/EUPRERA: Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
43.
Bauer, M.W.; Allum, N.; Miller, S. What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda.
Public Underst. Sci. 2007,16, 79–95. [CrossRef]
44. Sandhu, S. Strategic communication: An institutional perspective. Int. J. Strateg. Commun. 2009,3, 72–92. [CrossRef]
45.
Sandhu, S. Organization as Communication and Institutional Theory: Opportunities for Communicative Convergence. In
Organization as Communication; Blaschke, S., Schoeneborn, D., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2016; pp. 101–124.
46.
Harris, J.D.; Wicks, A.C. Public trust and trust in particular firm-stakeholder interactions. Corp. Reput. Rev.
2010
,13, 142–154.
[CrossRef]
47.
Boss, R.W.; Goodman, E.A.; Mcconkie, M.L.; Golembiewski, R.T. Trust And Third-Party Consultation: A Longitudinal Study. In
Academy of Management Proceedings (Vol. 2006, No. 1, pp. V1-V6); Academy of Management: Briarcliff Manor, NY, USA, 2006.
Publications 2021,9, 7 19 of 20
48.
Sydow, J. Understanding the constitution of interorganizational trust. In Trust within and between Organizations: Conceptual Issues
and Empirical Applications; Lane, C., Bachmann, R., Eds.; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 1998; pp. 31–63.
49.
Narayandas, D.; Rangan, V.K. Building and sustaining buyer–seller relationships in mature industrial markets. J. Mark.
2004
,68,
63–77. [CrossRef]
50.
Moreno, A.; Fuentes, C.; Khalil, N. GENDERCOM: Brechas y Oportunidades de Género en la Profesión de Gestión de la Comunicación en
España. (Gender Gaps and Opportunities in Communication Management in Spain); Dircom: Madrid, Spain, 2018; ISBN 978-84-09-
07667-3.
51.
Jeffers, D.W. Performance expectations as a measure of relative status of news and PR people. J. Mass Commun. Q.
1977
,54,
299–306. [CrossRef]
52.
Sallot, L.M.; Johnson, E.A. Investigating relationships between journalists and public relations practitioners: Working together to
set, frame and build public agenda, 1991–2004. Public Relat. Rev. 2006,32, 151–159. [CrossRef]
53. Zand, D.E. Trust and managerial problem solving. Adm. Sci. Q. 1972,17, 229–239. [CrossRef]
54.
Spicer, C.H. Collaborative advocacy and the creation of trust: Toward an understanding of stakeholder claims and risks. In The
Future of Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management: Challenges for the Next Generation; Toth, E., Ed.; Routledge:
New York, NY, USA, 2009; pp. 27–40.
55.
Horak, S.; Long, C.P. Dissolving the paradox: Toward a Yin–Yang perspective on the power and trust antagonism in collaborative
business relationships. Supply Chain Manag. Int. J. 2018,23, 573–590. [CrossRef]
56.
Granovetter, M. A theoretical agenda for economic sociology. In The New Economic Sociology: Developments in an Emerging Field;
Gullen, M., Collins, R., England, T., Meyer, M., Eds.; Russell Sage: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 35–60.
57.
Hardy, C.; Phillips, N.; Lawrence, T. Distinguishing trust and power in interorganizational relations: Forms and facades of
trust. In Trust within and between Organizations: Conceptual Issues and Empirical Applications; Lane, C., Bachmann, R., Eds.; Oxford
University Press: Oxford, UK, 1998; pp. 64–87.
58.
Tench, R.; Verˇciˇc, D.; Zerfass, A.; Moreno, A.; Verhoeven, P. Communication Excellence. How to Develop, Manage and Lead Exceptional
Communications; Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK, 2017.
59.
Kiousis, S.; Wu, X. International agenda-building and agenda-setting: Exploring the influence of public relations counsel on US
news media and public perceptions of foreign nations. Int. Commun. Gaz. 2008,70, 58–75. [CrossRef]
60.
Neil, J.; Schweickart, T.; Zhang, T.; Lukito, J.; Kim, J.Y.; Golan, G.; Kiousis, S. The dash for gas: Examining third-level agenda-
building and fracking in the United Kingdom. J. Stud. 2018,19, 182–208. [CrossRef]
61.
Bentele, G.; Seidenglanz, R. Trust and credibility—Prerequisites for communication management. In Public Relations Research.
European and International Perspectives and Innovations; Zerfass, A., Amsterdamska, O., Sriramesh, K., Eds.; Springer VS: Wiesbaden,
Germany, 2008; pp. 49–62.
62.
Ryan, M.; Martinson, D.L. How journalists and public relations professionals define lying. In Proceedings of the Annual Meeting
of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Boston, MA, USA, 7–10 August 1991.
63.
Shin, J.H.; Cameron, G.T. Conflict measurements: Analysis of simultaneous inclusion in roles, values, independence, attitudes,
and dyadic adjustment. Public Relat. Rev. 2004,30, 401–410. [CrossRef]
64.
Mellado, C.; Hanusch, F. Comparing professional identities, attitudes, and views in public communication: A study of Chilean
journalists and public relations practitioners. Public Relat. Rev. 2011,37, 384–391. [CrossRef]
65.
Verˇciˇc, A.T.; Coli´c, V. Journalists and public relations specialists: A coorientational analysis. Public Relat. Rev.
2016
,42, 522–529.
[CrossRef]
66.
Bentele, G.; Nothaft, H. Trust and credibility as the basis of corporate social responsibility. In The Handbook of Communication and
Corporate Social Responsibility; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2011; pp. 208–230.
67.
Dhanesh, G.S.; Duthler, G. Relationship management through social media influencers: Effects of followers’ awareness of paid
endorsement. Public Relat. Rev. 2019,45, 101765. [CrossRef]
68.
Ki, E.J.; Hon, L.C. Testing the linkages among the organization–public relationship and attitude and behavioral intentions. J.
Public Relat. Res. 2007,19, 1–23.
69.
Men, L.R.; Tsai, W.H.S. Public engagement with CEOs on social media: Motivations and relational outcomes. Public Relat. Rev.
2016,42, 932–942. [CrossRef]
70.
Kang, M.; Sung, M. How symmetrical employee communication leads to employee engagement and positive employee commu-
nication behaviors. J. Commun. Manag. 2017,21, 82–102. [CrossRef]
71.
Yue, C.A.; Men, L.R.; Ferguson, M.A. Bridging transformational leadership, transparent communication, and employee openness
to change: The mediating role of trust. Public Relat. Rev. 2019,45, 101779. [CrossRef]
72.
Huang, Y.H. Values of public relations: Effects on organization-public relationships mediating conflict resolution. J. Public Relat.
Res. 2001,13, 265–301. [CrossRef]
73.
Shen, H. Refining organization–public relationship quality measurement in student and employee samples. Journal. Mass
Commun. Q. 2017,94, 994–1010. [CrossRef]
74.
Cheng, Y. Looking back, moving forward: A review and reflection of the organization- public relationship (OPR) research. Public
Relat. Rev 2018,44, 932–942. [CrossRef]
75. Luoma-Aho, V. Neutral reputation and public sector organizations. Corp. Reput. Rev. 2007,10, 124–143. [CrossRef]
Publications 2021,9, 7 20 of 20
76.
Holmström, S. The inter-subjective and the social systemic public relations paradigms. J. Commun. Manag.
1997
,2, 24–39.
[CrossRef]
77.
Holmström, S. On Luhmann: Reframing Public Relations as Part of Society’s Evolutionary Learning Processes. In Public Relations
and Social Theory: Key Figures, Concepts and Developments; Ihlen, Ø., Fredriksson, M., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2018;
pp. 39–60.
78. Luhmann, N. Trust and Power; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 1979.
79. Luhmann, N. Globalization or world society: How to conceive of modern society? Int. Rev. Sociol. 1997,7, 67–79. [CrossRef]
80.
Valentini, C.; Kruckeberg, D. Public relations and trust in contemporary global society: A Luhmannian perspective of the role of
public relations. Cent. Eur. J. Commun. 2011,4, 91–107.
81.
Valentini, C. Trust research in public relations: An assessment of its conceptual, theoretical and methodological foundations.
Corp. Commun. Int. J. 2020. [CrossRef]
82. Luhmann, N. Confianza; Anthropos: Ciudad de México, México, 1996.
83. Van Ruler, B.; Verçiç, D. Public Relations and Communication Management in Europe; Mouton de Gruyter: Berlin, Germany, 2004.
84.
Falkheimer, J. Interpreting Public Relations through Anthony Giddens’s Structuration and Late Modernity Theory. In Public
Relations and Social Theory. Key Figures and Concepts; Routlege: New York, NY, USA; London, UK, 2009.
85.
Callison, C. Do PR practitioners have a PR problem? The effect of associating a source with, 2009 public relations and client-
negative news on audience perception of credibility. J. Public Relat. Res. 2001,13, 219–234. [CrossRef]
86.
Saunders, J. What Does it Mean to be Authentic in Business? Communication Director. 2016. Available online: https:
//www.communication-director.com/issues/you-gotta-have-faith-trust-and-communications/what-does-it-mean-be-
authentic-business/#.Xa3khq0rzeQ (accessed on 2 February 2021).
87.
Andersson, R. Employee communication responsibility: Its antecedents and implications for strategic communication manage-
ment. Int. J. Strateg. Commun. 2019,13, 60–75. [CrossRef]
88.
Niederhäuser, M.; Rosenberger, N. Kommunikation in der digitalen Transformation. Bestandsaufnahme und Entwicklungsbedarf
des strategischen Kommunikationsmanagements von Wirtschaftsunternehmen, Verwaltungen und Non-Profit-Organizationen in
der Schweiz. Winterthur; ZHAW: Winterhur, Switzerland, 2018; Available online: https://doi.org/10.21256/zhaw-3866 (accessed
on 4 May 2019).
89.
Wright, D.K.; Hinson, M. DAn update examination of Social Media and Emerging Media Use in Public Relations Practice: A
longitudinal Analisis between 2006 and 2014. Public Relat. J.
2014
,8. Available online: https://prjournal.instituteforpr.org/wp-
content/uploads/2014WrightHinson-1.pdf (accessed on 3 June 2020).
90.
Arthur, W.; Page Society; Business Roundtable Institute for Corporate Ethics. The Dynamics of Public Trust in Business—Emerging
Opportunities for Leaders. A Call to Action to Overcome the Present Crisis of Trust in Business; A. W. Page Society: New York, NY, USA,
2009; Available online: http://bit.ly/ecm2019ref1 (accessed on 29 April 2020).
91.
Yang, S.U. An integrated model for organization—public relational outcomes, organizational reputation, and their antecedents. J.
Public Relat. Res. 2007,19, 91–121. [CrossRef]
92.
Weber, C.; Weidner, K.; Kroeger, A.; Wallace, J. Social value creation in inter-organizational collaborations in the not-for-profit
sector–give and take from a dyadic perspective. J. Manag. Stud. 2017,54, 929–956. [CrossRef]
93.
Schnackenberg, A.K.; Tomlinson, E.C. Organizational transparency: A new perspective on managing trust in organization-
stakeholder relationships. J. Manag. 2016,42, 1784–1810. [CrossRef]
94.
Tsetsura, K.; Kruckeberg, D. Transparency, Public Relations and the Mass Media: Combatting the Hidden Influences in News Coverage
Worldwide; Routledge: London, UK, 2017.
95.
Albu, O.B.; Flyverbom, M. Organizational transparency: Conceptualizations, conditions, and consequences. Bus. Soc.
2019
,58,
268–297. [CrossRef]
96.
Ciszek, E. “We are people, not transactions”: Trust as a precursor to dialogue with LGBTQ publics. Public Relat. Rev.
2019
,
46, 101759. [CrossRef]
97.
Golin Harris. Doing Well by Doing Good 2005: The Trajectory of Corporate Citizenship in American Business; Golin Harris: Chicago,
CA, USA, 2005.
98. Han, B.C. The Transparency Society; Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA, 2015.
99.
Bentele, G.; Seiffert, J. Organisatorische Transparenz und Vertrauen. In Corporate Transparency; Klenk, V., Hanke, D.J., Eds.;
Frankfurter Allgemeine Buch: Frankfurt am Main, Germany, 2009; pp. 42–61.
100.
Wehmeier, S.; Raaz, O. Transparency matters: The concept of organizational transparency in the academic discourse. Public Relat.
Inq. 2012,1, 337–366. [CrossRef]
101.
Christensen, L.T.; Cornelissen, J. Organizational transparency as myth and metaphor. Eur. J. Soc. Theory
2015
,18, 132–149.
[CrossRef]
102.
Zerfass, A.; Tench, R.; Moreno, A.; Verhoeven, P.; Verˇciˇc, D.; Klewes, J. Mind the Gap: How the Public and Public Relations Professionals
Value Leadership and Social Media. Results of the ComGap Study in 10 European Countries; Ketchum: Berlin, Germany, 2014.
103.
Verhoeven, P.; Zerfass, A.; Verˇciˇc, D.; Tench, R.; Moreno, A. Public relations and the rise of hypermodern values: Exploring the
profession in Europe. Public Relat. Rev. 2018,44, 471–480. [CrossRef]
