The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Study on Dialogic Communication, Trust, and Distrust: Testing a Scale for Measuring Organization–Public Dialogic Communication (OPDC)
Abstract
Although there is a wide range of discussion on dialogic communication, or dialogue, in the field of public relations, little research has dealt with the empirical measurement of organization–public dialogue. The primary purpose of this study was to test the proposed scale for measuring organization–public dialogic communication (OPDC). Additionally, this study aimed to demonstrate the link between dialogic communication and trust/distrust between organizations studied and their publics. For the research purpose, two anonymous online surveys were used to collect the data. The participants were American consumers randomly selected from a representative research panel of online survey participants (N = 704). According to the results, the proposed 2-factor, 28-item scale of OPDC was valid and reliable. Also, for further empirical validation, this study found that the proposed scale of OPDC is significantly related to public trust and distrust. Given the scarcity of the empirical research on OPDC, the results of this study can contribute to further research in communication management.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1914185 · Cited by 48,524
Explaining the Limited Effectiveness of Legalistic ‘Remedies’ for Trust/Distrust
Sitkin, S. B., & Roth, N. L. (1993) · Organization Science · doi:10.1287/orsc.4.3.367 · Cited by 1,545
Information Systems Innovation for Environmental Sustainability1
Melville, N. P. (2010) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/20721412 · Cited by 868
Relational agents: a model and implementation of building user trust
Bickmore, T., & Cassell, J. (2001) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/365024.365304 · Cited by 479
Strong community, deep learning: exploring the link
Chapman, C., Ramondt, L., & Smiley, G. (2005) · Innovations in Education and Teaching International · doi:10.1080/01587910500167910 · Cited by 168
Cited by
Zhan, E. S., Zheng, Q., Dong, C., & Thorson, E. (2025) · International Journal of Strategic Communication · doi:10.1080/1553118x.2025.2471527 · Cited by 22
Making Space for Support: An Exploratory Analysis of Pandemic-Response Mutual Aid Platforms
Knearem, T., Jo, J., Tsai, C.-H., & Carroll, J. M. (2021) · C&T '21: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Communities & Technologies - Wicked Problems in the Age of Tech · doi:10.1145/3461564.3461567 · Cited by 18
Metadata
- Authors
- Yang, S.-U., Kang, M., & Cha, H.
- Venue
- Journal of Public Relations Research
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2015-03-12
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 175-192
- ISSN
- 1062-726X (ISSN-L)
- 1532-754X
- OpenAlex
- W1980008357
- Cited by
- 172
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 26.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Study on Dialogic Communication, Trust, and Distrust: Testing a Scale for Measuring Organization–Public Dialogic Communication (OPDC). https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/1062726x.2015.1007998
- The paper
- Yang, S.-U., Kang, M., & Cha, H. (2015). A Study on Dialogic Communication, Trust, and Distrust: Testing a Scale for Measuring Organization–Public Dialogic Communication (OPDC). Journal of Public Relations Research. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726x.2015.1007998
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
