When like-minded organizations collaborate to promote a new initiative, audiences may interpret such coalitions as signals of increased credibility. Conversely, coalitions may also provoke distrust depending on audience members’ ideological alignment. Classic persuasion research suggests that information coming from multiple independent sources is typically perceived as more accurate than a single source, but, in today’s polarized climate, this “multiple source effect” may not hold. Little is known about how coalitions of partisan versus neutral organizations shape perceptions of accuracy, agreement, and malevolence in initiatives to counter misinformation. Addressing this gap, the present study tested these dynamics in two online experiments with U.S. participants (Study 1: N = 549 Republicans; Study 2: N = 564 Democrats), with a 2 (one vs. three sources) * 3 (congruent, incongruent, neutral source) + 1 (no source) experimental design. Results showed that partisan congruence consistently shaped evaluations, while source number alone had no effects. An interaction emerged in the Republican sample only, where multiple incongruent sources reduced perceived accuracy and agreement with the initiative relative to congruent or neutral coalitions.
The purpose of this study is to examine whose voices on issues of diversity have been included in public relations scholarship and to what extent those voices have been amplified in the literature. Thus, we analyzed 238 journal articles in 11 leading public relations and communication journals selected through using diversity, equity, and inclusion-related key search terms to examine the authorship and citation count of articles published by public relations scholars. We analyzed the data by article first author, as well as by race, institution, and gender. The findings inspired by the work of Chakravartty et al. (2018) and Freelon et al. (2023) extend this work by examining scholarship on diversity in the field of public relations. Results demonstrate that authorship and citation patterns have changed over three decades, with increasing parity. Much of the work has been conducted at U.S. institutions, with White women figuring prominently as authors of diversity work. Theoretical and practical implications discuss important questions about how diversity, equity, and inclusion scholarship is framed and whose perspectives are privileged and amplified.
Public relations scholarship includes a longstanding body of feminist and gender research exploring gendered experiences, inequities, identities, and power within the field. This manuscript builds on this scholarship by advancing feminist institutionalism (FI) as a complementary theoretical lens for examining how gender operates within public relations institutions. Drawing from new institutionalism, FI conceptualizes institutions as structured by both formal and informal “rules of the game,” shaped through historical, sociological, rational choice, and discursive processes, and inherently embedded with gendered power relations. This institutional orientation offers particular value to public relations scholarship by providing a means of connecting gendered experiences and outcomes to the organizational structures, professional norms, histories, and systems of power through which public relations is practiced. Through a review of the gendered professionalization of public relations and scholarship on feminism, gender, and intersectionality, this manuscript demonstrates how FI can extend and organize existing scholarly conversations. The central contribution is a feminist institutionalist consideration matrix that translates key dimensions of FI into guiding questions and field-specific applications, providing an accessible entry point for incorporating an institutional gender lens into public relations research. By incorporating intersectionality and recognizing gender as fluid and socially constructed, the matrix provides a roadmap for examining gendered institutional dynamics across public relations contexts. In doing so, the manuscript seeks to facilitate greater use of theoretically grounded gender analysis within public relations scholarship.
The majority of issues management scholarship in public relations scholarship examines a single national context, missing the needs of many practitioners and leaders at multinational organizations to manage issues across borders, often with unsynchronized issue cycles. To address this gap, this conceptual paper articulates a novel framework—Transnational Social Issues Management (TSIM)—designed to provide key steps toward global issues management work that apprehends organizational responsibilities in democratic societies.
