Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 14 – 20

Framing information to enhance corporate reputation:

The impact of message source, information type, and reference point $
Julie A. Rutha*, Anne York,1b
a
School of Business, Rutgers University, 227 Penn Street, Camden, NJ 08102, USA
b
Kenan-Flagler School of Business, University of North Carolina, CB-3490 McColl Building, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3490, USA
Received 19 July 2000; accepted 30 October 2000

Abstract

This paper investigates how the presentation of performance information affects stakeholders’ attitudes towards firms that seek to enhance
their reputation. Specifically, we investigate the effect of three information characteristics on stakeholder attitudes toward the firm: the
message source, information type (numeric vs. verbal information), and reference point (trend vs. competitor comparisons). An experiment
employing a 3  2  2 design is utilized, showing that the source of the information interacts with both the reference point and information
type to affect attitude change. The ‘‘consistency’’ between source and information type or reference point determines the impact on degree of
attitude change. Our results have important implications for managers, demonstrating that reputation does not have to be merely a passive
reflection of a firm, but can be the target of a firm’s active management.
D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Reputation; Attitudes; Information processing; Reference point; Stakeholder

1. Introduction retain top employees, and form relationships with suppliers

At the intersection of marketing and management lies a
concept that few academics and managers would dispute as
centrally important to a firm’s success: reputation. Corporate
reputation is considered to be a perceptual representation of
a company’s past actions and future prospects that are an
aggregate of stakeholders’ collective judgments or attitudes
(Fombrun, 1996; Herbig et al., 1994). Reputation is vitally
important to a firm because it impacts bottom-line profit-
ability through its ability to attract employees to its jobs,
investors to its securities, and customers to its products.
Firms with low reputational capital are often disadvantaged
relative to rivals, finding it more difficult to charge premium
prices, attract and retain customers, sell stock, recruit and
$
Both authors contributed equally to the paper and are listed alpha-
betically. The authors gratefully acknowledge the insightful comments
provided by Bill Starbuck, Jane Kennedy, Terry Mitchell, Peter Nye, Cele
Otnes, Sam Rabinowitz, and Carol Scarborough and the research assistance
provided by Melissa Schilling.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-856-225-6695; fax: +1-856-225-6231.
E-mail addresses: jaruth@camden.rutgers.edu (J.A. Ruth),
ilinitch@isis.unc.edu (A. York).
1
Tel.: + 1-919-962-3141; fax: + 1-919-962-4425.
(Fombrun, 1996).
While companies recognize the need to manage their
reputations, academia has been slow to provide theory-based
guidance on how firms should do this, particularly with
respect to problem areas of their business activities (e.g.,
Exxon and perceptions of its environmental performance).
Our research is designed to address this need, founded on the
notion that reputation is based on the actions of the firm and
its communications about these actions (Keller, 1998).
Toward that end, we investigate ways in which weak-repu-
tation firms can communicate performance improvements
and ultimately bolster attitudes held by key stakeholders such
as consumers and the general public. We examine the
persuasive effects of three important characteristics of per-
formance information: the source that delivers the message,
whether the information is presented in numeric or verbal
terms, and the reference point used to express performance
improvement. While each of these message characteristics
alone might impact individuals’ attitudes towards the firm,
we propose that when these information characteristics are
presented in an internally consistent manner, greater positive
attitude change should result.
We test our hypotheses through an experimental study
involving Exxon, a corporation whose reputation has been

0148-2963/$ – see front matter D 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0148-2963(02)00270-9
 J.A. Ruth, A. York / Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 14–20
called into question, in part because of poor environmental
performance and ineffective communication management
(Fombrun, 1996). Our experimental manipulations pres-
ent positive performance improvement information, with
the goal of countering preexisting negative attitudes to-
ward the firm and producing positive attitude change. For
firms that have weak reputations, our findings provide
guidance on how to communicate performance improvement
more effectively.
2. The impact of information characteristics on attitudes
toward the firm
The relationship between the way information is pre-
sented or framed and individuals’ interpretation of such
information is the subject of a large body of psychology-
based research. In forming judgments individuals often
rely on a variety of heuristics or information characteristics
that are not necessarily central to the true merits of the
situation at hand (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986; Kahneman
et al., 1982). In such contexts, persuasion is affected by the
ways in which information is ‘‘packaged,’’ (Elsbach and
Elofson, 2000) including the message source and other
characteristics that are peripheral to the information con-
tent (Petty and Cacioppo, 1986) such as reference points
and whether the information is presented numerically
or verbally.
2.1. Message source
Message sources such as media organizations that com-
ment on the activities of firms are especially influential in
shaping individuals’ beliefs about those firms (Fombrun,
1996; Duncan and Moriarty, 1997, 1998). Rather than
having a direct, main effect on attitudes, the message source
has demonstrated robust interaction effects with message
content on persuasion (Chaiken and Trope, 1999; Petty and
Cacioppo, 1986). For example, Goldberg and Hartwick
(1990) observed an interaction effect on product evaluations
of source and advertising claim extremity (i.e., the firm’s
ranking 1st, 3rd, 5th, or 20th out of 100 firms in a product
category). Low credibility sources claiming the firm was
best (i.e., 1st out of 100) led to the lowest product evalua-
tions, much lower than either the same source claiming the
firm’s ranking was 3rd, 5th, or 20th, or a highly credible
source paired with any ranking claim. Accordingly, we
expect the source of performance improvement information
to interact with other message characteristics in affecting
attitude change.
2.2. Information type
A second information characteristic that may affect
attitude change is information type: that is, whether
information is presented in numeric or verbal form. Viswa-
15
nathan and Childers (1996) proposed that numeric informa-
tion, because of its specificity, might be easier to encode,
retrieve at a later time, and use in making judgments. Their
initial results indicated that numeric (e.g., 32 miles per
gallon) compared to verbal information (e.g., high gas
mileage) was processed more quickly and accurately. The
authors also noted, however, that numeric magnitude
information is usually a generic descriptor that may apply
to several attributes such as ‘‘high’’ gas mileage and prices.
They further showed that when specificity is controlled
(e.g., 72-month warranty vs. long warranty), the superiority
of numeric information is reduced or eliminated. Childers
and Viswanathan (2000) also observed memory superiority
when there were ‘‘identical representations’’ between
information type at initial presentation and at retrieval.
Specifically, numeric presentation followed by numeric
recognition stimuli produced faster, more accurate recog-
nition than numeric paired with verbal, and verbal paired
with numeric, representations. Thus, neither numeric nor
verbal information is always superior. Rather, the ability of
this information characteristic to affect processing and
judgments depends on its interaction and consistency with
other variables.
2.3. Reference point
A third message characteristic that may affect attitude
change in this context is the reference point against which
information is presented. Reference points are baseline stand-
ards of comparison (Kahneman, 1992; Fiegenbaum et al.,
1996). Two of the most common reference points used to
report performance information are trend analysis and bench-
marking against competitors. Trend analysis is an internal
reference point that compares the firm’s current performance
to its own past performance (Pearce and Robinson, 1994),
while benchmarking is an external reference point that com-
pares the firm’s current performance with that of other firms
in the industry (i.e., competitor analysis; Ghoshal and West-
ney, 1991; Mennon and Landers, 1987).
Correspondence theory (Ajzen and Fishbein, 1980) sug-
gests that framing information to compare the firm’s current
to its past performance might be perceived as more directly
about the firm than comparing to an industry standard. That
is, the greater correspondence between the attitude object
(e.g., the firm) and the stimulus information (e.g., the firm’s
performance over time rather than compared to industry)
may produce the greatest attitude change, suggesting the
superiority of trend analysis in enhancing attitudes toward
the firm. On the other hand, proponents of ‘‘best practices’’
and ‘‘reengineering’’ champion the superiority of bench-
marking against competitors as a reference point for judging
a firm’s performance (Hammer and Champy, 1993). Since
neither reference point appears to have a clear advantage, it
may be possible that either one can be persuasive under
certain conditions such as consistency with other informa-
tion characteristics.
16 J.A. Ruth, A. York / Journal of Business Research 57 (2002) 14–20
3. Information consistency and attitude change
The consistency effects described as ‘‘identical represen-
tations’’ and ‘‘correspondence’’ suggest that processing and
judgment advantages are obtained when different pieces of
information share characteristics in common. This type of
consistency effect is also central in strategic management
research, where the fit-as-matching perspective is invoked
for concepts that involve a theoretically defined relationship
between two variables (e.g., firm strategy and its structure)
without reference to a performance anchor, criterion, or
effect on a third variable (Venkatraman, 1989).
In our case, the theoretically defined match is expected
because of the characteristics shared by source and informa-
tion type or source and reference point. Message recipients
have beliefs or expectations about the information typically
presented by certain sources. For example, the Envir-
onmental Protection Agency (EPA) would be expected to
provide detailed, numerical analyses of a firm’s envir-
onmental activities. Consistency will occur based on shared
characteristics of message source expectations and per-
formance information actually provided by the source.
Consistency will occur when source expectations and actual
performance information are the same type (e.g., numeric
and numeric) rather than mixing these characteristics
(e.g., numeric source expectations and verbal performance
information). Since individuals use such beliefs and expect-
ations to form judgments of firms and brands (Dawar and
Pillutla, 2000; Hoch and Ha, 1986; Petty and Cacioppo,
1979), the theory developed by Childers and Viswanathan
(2000) suggests that consistent combinations of source and
information type will yield greater favorable attitude change
than inconsistent pairings.
Hypothesis 1: Source and information type will interact
to significantly affect the degree of change in stakeholder
attitudes toward the firm. Consistent (inconsistent) pairings
of source expectations and performance improvement
information will yield a greater (lesser) degree of positive
attitude change (i.e., numeric/numeric > numeric/verbal
source expectations and performance improvement informa-
tion; verbal/verbal > verbal/numeric source expectations and
performance improvement information).
Extending the consistency hypothesis to a new informa-
tion characteristic, we hypothesize a similar interaction
effect of source and reference point on attitude change.
Specifically, the degree of persuasion will be influenced
by the consistency or ‘‘fit’’ between the reference point
against which performance information is presented (that is,
trend analysis or competitor analysis) and message recipi-
ents’ beliefs about the reference point typically associated
with that message source (e.g., Fortune often reports com-
parisons of individual firms to the industry through rank-
ings). Again, consistent combinations will be superior to
inconsistent ones with respect to favorable attitude change.
Hypothesis 2: Source and reference point will interact to
significantly affect the degree of change in stakeholder
attitudes toward the firm. Consistent (inconsistent) pairings
of source expectations and reference point will yield a
greater (lesser) degree of positive attitude change (i.e., trend/
trend > trend/competitor source expectations and perform-
ance improvement information; competitor /competitor > -
competitor/trend source expectations and performance
improvement information).
In sum, numeric performance improvement information
will not always be superior to verbal information, and verbal
will not always be superior to numeric information, in
persuasion settings. Also, neither reference point will dem-
onstrate universal superiority in producing favorable attitude
change. Instead, the persuasive effect of information type
and reference point will be dependent on the source with
which they are paired, with consistent pairings yielding the
largest amount of favorable attitude change.
4. Method
We utilized a laboratory experiment to test these hypo-
theses. We first wanted to identify a well-known firm that
would be motivated to provide evidence of performance
improvement regarding a specific aspect of its business
activities. A single firm was deemed appropriate because
this is a test of underlying psychological processes, where
pretests and randomization of subjects to experimental
conditions lends assurance that results are due to theoretical
relationships between factors (for other single-firm studies,
see Bateman et al., 1992; Bateman and Zeithaml, 1989).
In the first pretest (n = 30), we measured attitudes toward
a variety of firms. Attitudes toward Exxon were signific-
antly lower than other firms in the oil and gas industry and
those in other industries. In light of this pretest and since
Exxon’s reputation has been called into question in part due
to their environmental performance and communications
management (Fombrun, 1996), we elected to use Exxon
and the context of environmental performance improve-
ment information.
4.1. Research design and procedure
A 3  2  2 full factorial experimental design was used
to test the hypotheses. Message source, information type,
and reference point were manipulated to create consistent or
inconsistent combinations of source paired with information
type or reference point. The first factor, message source, was
represented by Fortune, the Associated Press (AP), and EPA
Reports. Information type refers to whether the performance
information was presented in numeric terms (e.g., ‘‘20%
better than the industry average’’) or verbal terms (e.g.,
‘‘better than the industry average’’). For reference point,
information was presented in relation to the firm’s past
 J.A. Ruth, A. York / Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 14–20
history (e.g., ‘‘better than last year’s performance’’; trend
analysis) or to the industry average (e.g., ‘‘better than the
industry average’’; competitor analysis).
Graduate and undergraduate students (n = 183) at a large
west coast university participated in this study as part
of classroom activities. The experimenters were not the
instructors for these classes, minimizing potential demand
effects. The average age of subjects was 26 years (S.D. =
8.4) and 56% were male. Subjects were randomly assigned
to one of the 12 conditions and were presented with a
booklet containing the introduction, preexposure measures,
experimental stimulus materials, and postexposure meas-
ures. The introduction explained that the purpose was to
understand people’s reactions to magazine advertisements.
After reading the introduction, subjects were asked their
attitudes towards a number of brands, publications, and
companies including Exxon. The purpose of these preex-
posure measures was to gauge existing attitudes toward
Exxon prior to exposure to the experimental materials, while
masking Exxon as the focus of the study. Following filler
material, subjects were presented with the experimental
materials in the form of an excerpt from a recent news
publication. Subjects were asked to read through the materi-
als at their own pace. After reading the publication excerpt,
they completed posttest measures and manipulation checks.
Booklets were then collected and subjects were thanked.
The experimenters provided debriefing during the following
class period.
4.2. Independent variables
Small-scale surveys were used to calibrate the manipu-
lations to ensure consistent and inconsistent combinations
of source and other variables. One pretest (n = 30) was
conducted to identify sources that were equivalent in believ-
ability and familiarity but differed in expectations of pro-
viding trend vs. competitor analysis, as well as numeric
vs. verbal, information. The results showed that Fortune,
AP, and EPA Reports did not differ in familiarity or cred-
ibility. A second set of respondents (n = 28) showed that the
sources were different in subjects’ beliefs about the informa-
tion each source typically presents. Subjects viewed Fortune
as significantly more likely to evaluate a company’s per-
formance in comparison to its industry peers (i.e., compet-
itive analysis) than to track a firm’s performance over time.
Subjects expected that EPA Reports were significantly more
likely to track a firm’s performance over time (i.e., trend
analysis) than to evaluate a company in comparison to its
industry peers. Subjects’ perceptions of AP did not differ
significantly according to beliefs about information pre-
sented via trend vs. competitive analysis.
Another survey (n = 14) showed differences in expect-
ations about the verbal vs. numeric information presented by
each source. Using a seven-point scale anchored by qual-
itative and quantitative, subjects were asked to express their
beliefs about the type of information typically reported by
17
each source. EPA Reports and Fortune differed significantly
in this dimension. Subjects also believed EPA Reports
provided significantly more numeric information than AP.
Subjects’ rankings showed that the majority of believed EPA
Reports would be most likely to provide numeric informa-
tion, followed by AP and Fortune.
For the information type manipulation, numeric informa-
tion was presented in percentage form and was focused only
on environmental improvement. Four specific items were
varied: percentage of toxic emissions (15% less vs. less),
number of Superfund sites (20% fewer vs. fewer), assessed
fines (10% less vs. less), and participation in recycling
programs (34% more vs. more). While these figures are
consistent with industry norms, a pretest (n = 27) showed
that there was no difference in perceived performance
improvement between the numeric and verbal, or competitor
and trend analysis, conditions.
4.3. Dependent variable
The dependent variable of interest was change in atti-
tudes toward Exxon. Attitudes toward Exxon were meas-
ured before and after exposure to the stimulus with three
standard seven-point attitude items: dislike/like, negative/
positive, and unfavorable/favorable. For each subject, the
preexposure measure of attitudes toward Exxon was sub-
tracted from postexposure attitudes toward Exxon, reflecting
the relative shift in attitudes due to exposure to the manip-
ulated factors (i.e., AttD = Xpost Xpre). The average attitude
change across all conditions was positive and sizeable
(AttD = 0.60, S.D. = 1.25). We analyzed these difference
scores using ANOVA (Corfman, 1991; Menon, 1997; Pan
and Lehmann, 1993; see also repeated measures designs).
5. Results
Consistent with the implied null hypotheses, none of the
factors exerted a significant main effect on attitude change.
Two significant interaction effects on attitude change
were observed.
5.1. Message source and information type
Consistent with Hypothesis 1, there is a significant inter-
action effect of message source and information type on
attitude change [ F(2,171) = 3.05, P < .05]. As expected, an
inspection of the means (see Table 1A and Fig. 1A) shows
that in numeric performance improvement conditions, atti-
tude enhancement was greatest when presented via EPA
Reports, followed by AP and Fortune. This pattern is re-
versed for verbal information.
Simple main effects tests were used to determine whether
the degree of attitude change is significantly different within
conditions of numeric information, verbal information, or
both. Consistent with Hypothesis 1 and as indicated by the
18 J.A. Ruth, A. York / Journal of Business Research 57 (2002) 14–20

Table 1 effect of source. When Fortune is the source, attitude

Mean attitude change (AttD) for significant ANOVA effects
change is significantly greater with verbal rather than
A. Source  Information Type two-way interaction numeric information. In contrast to Fortune, the pattern
Information type Source for EPA Reports is reversed. No significant differences were
Fortune AP EPA Reports observed for the effect on attitude change in the AP
Numeric .26a,c
.64 a
.85a condition. Since we established that individuals hold expect-
Verbal .84b,c .65b .40b ations that Fortune provides verbal rather than numeric
information and EPA Reports provides numeric rather than
B. Source  Reference Point two-way interaction verbal information, the results indicate that the impact of
Reference point Source performance improvement information is greatest when
Fortune AP EPA Reports cast consistently with message recipients’ expectations for
Trend .29d,f
.72 d
.91d,g that source.
Competitor .82e,f .58e .38e,g
Means with the same superscripts are significantly different from one 5.2. Message source and reference point effects
another. For example, within the Fortune condition, mean attitude changes
associated with numeric vs. verbal performance improvement information The results also provide support for Hypothesis 2, which
are significantly different at p < 0.05 (see superscript c). postulates an interaction effect of source and reference point
on attitude change [ F(2,171) = 3.19, P < .04]. An inspection
t tests summarized by the superscripts in Table 1A (see a), of the means (see Table 1B) shows that when presenting the
numeric performance improvement information from the information compared to the firm’s own trend, EPA Reports
EPA Reports yields greater positive attitude change than that produced the most favorable attitude change followed by the
same information presented by AP or Fortune. In verbal AP and Fortune. However, this pattern is reversed in
conditions, source is also important but the ordering is competitor analysis conditions. When the information was
reversed. As shown by the superscripts in common across benchmarked in light of competitors, attitude change was
the row (b) and consistent with Hypothesis 1, for verbal largest when presented via Fortune, followed by AP and
performance improvement information, attitude change EPA Reports (see Fig. 1B).
associated with Fortune is greater than the AP, or EPA When evaluating the effects of reference point within
Reports conditions. certain sources, the pattern of results further shows the
When evaluating the effects of information type within importance of the source. When Fortune was the source,
certain sources, the pattern of results further shows the competitor analysis was superior to trend analysis in attitude

Fig. 1. (A) Interaction of message source and information type. (B) Interaction of message source and reference point.
 J.A. Ruth, A. York / Journal of Business Research 57 (2004) 14–20
change. Also, in conditions where the source was EPA
Reports, trend vs. competitor analysis resulted in signific-
antly different attitude change. No significant differences,
however, were observed in AP conditions. Taken together,
these results indicate that the consistency between a source’s
customary reference point affects degree of attitude change
resulting from performance improvement information.
6. Discussion and future research
Our findings add to a large and diverse body of evidence
suggesting that the perceptual lens through which messages
are framed influences the way that audiences receive and
use information. We demonstrate that: (1) the message
source is important to performance improvement informa-
tion’s persuasive effectiveness, working in tandem with
other message characteristics; (2) numeric and verbal per-
formance information must be consistent with the source for
maximum persuasive effect; (3) neither trend nor competitor
performance information is superior but rather works in a
contingency approach based on consistency; and (4) repu-
tation does not have to be merely a passive reflection of a
firm, but can be actively managed. These results add to the
literature on managing firm reputation, provide further
evidence to support a consistency or ‘‘fit’’ approach to
examining attitude change, and present direction for rebuild-
ing reputation in the aftermath of a crisis.
6.1. Managing firm reputation
Because of its impact on the beliefs and actions of
employees, customers, suppliers, stockholders, and other
relevant stakeholders, one key responsibility of top manag-
ers is protecting and enhancing firm reputation (Fombrun
and Shanley, 1990; Weigelt and Camerer, 1988). Yet, past
research suggests that firms experience great difficulty
changing stakeholder perceptions, even if there is strong
evidence that the firm has actually addressed a problem area
and improved (Ilinitch et al., 1998). Indeed, one of our
concerns in conducting this research was that perhaps
attitudes toward this firm had been so irretrievably damaged
(see Fombrun, 1996, p. 29) that performance improvement
information, in any form, might be unconvincing and result
in no attitude change.
Our results demonstrate that managers may have more
control over stakeholder attitudes than previously believed
and provide guidance on structuring performance informa-
tion for reputational enhancement. Clearly, managers should
pay special attention to the sources targeted to receive
performance improvement information. Even though the
sources used in our study were equally credible, subjects’
beliefs about each source framed their perception of the
information and ultimately influenced the persuasive impact
of it. While it may not be possible for the firm to fully
control which media sources ultimately deliver certain
19
information, firms can improve their odds by tailoring
information to be more consistent with particular sources
through customized advertisements, well-targeted press
releases, and carefully crafted interviews with selected
media outlets.
6.2. Information characteristic consistency and attitude
change
From a theoretical standpoint, our results identify con-
ditions under which information processing is not hierarch-
ical but rather combinatorial and highly interdependent,
adding to the theory that content and form are not discrete
and separable routes but act as dual means of persuasion
(Petty and Wegener, 1998; Chaiken and Trope, 1999). The
consistency, correspondence, and ‘‘fit as matching’’ frame-
works provide additional tools for thinking about the nature
of those interactions by examining the relationships among
message information characteristics. Indeed, identical per-
formance information can have dramatically different
effects on attitudes, depending on its consistency with
expectations about the source. When a source is credible
but is not associated with a particular reference point or
numeric vs. verbal performance information, no differential
patterns of persuasion are observed. However, when there
is inconsistency between the source and either reference
point or information type, that same information has a
weaker effect on attitude improvement. In other words,
some portion of the information’s maximal effect is left
unused — ‘‘on the table,’’ so to speak — by the inconsist-
ency between the source and either reference point or in-
formation type.
6.3. Rebuilding reputation in the aftermath of a crisis
This research also has direct implications for communi-
cations to consumers and the public following significant
events that threaten a firm’s reputation, such as crises.
Following the initial containment of a crisis situation, the
work of business recovery becomes focal (Pearson and
Mitroff, 1993). While a large body of short-term crisis
containment research exists, little work has been done on
resolving the long-term negative effects of crises, such as
loss of reputation. Following Keller (1998), communication
about the firm’s actions can contribute to rebuilding repu-
tation. Indeed, Herbig et al. (1994) note that ‘‘it takes many
applications [repetition] of a true signal [performance
improvement information] to restore a firm’s reputation to
where it was before’’ the business problem occurred (p. 30).
Because identical actions by the firm can have significant
(both in a statistical and practical sense), differential
impacts on reputation depending on information character-
istics framing that performance information, it becomes
even more important to actively manage postcrisis corpor-
ate communications. Further, although our research did not
investigate the role of firm-generated sources such as press
20 J.A. Ruth, A. York / Journal of Business Research 57 (2002) 14–20
releases or annual reports, our results lend indirect support
to the D’Aveni and MacMillan (1990) findings that the
type of information presented in such sources may sig-
nificantly influence stakeholder attitudes toward postcrisis
firms.
6.4. Limitations and future research
Our experimental context involved one company and one
performance domain. Replication of this study with other
companies and performance domains would add to our
understanding of information characteristics studied here.
Future research should also examine the combined effect of
the two reference points since firms oftentimes use both
trend and competitor reference points in reporting perform-
ance improvements. Alternative constructs and measures,
such as the corporate credibility scale (Newell and Gold-
smith, 2001), offer potential to further understand the
psychological effect of reputation-building messages. Since
knowledge is a well-known moderator of persuasion (Petty
and Cacioppo, 1986), future research should incorporate the
effect of knowledge held by specific stakeholder groups
such as employees, a very relevant and influential target for
corporate communications programs (Gilly and Wolfin-
barger, 1998; Duncan and Moriarty, 1997).
References
Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behav-
ior. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice-Hall, 1980.
Bateman TS, Zeithaml CP. The psychological context of strategic decisions:
a model and convergent experimental findings. Strategic Manage J 1989;
10:59 – 74.
Bateman TS, Sakano T, Fujita M. Roger, me, and my attitude: firm prop-
aganda and cynicism toward corporate leadership. J Appl Psychol 1992;
77:768 – 71.
Chaiken S, Trope Y. Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York:
Guilford, 1999.
Childers TL, Viswanathan M. Representation of numerical and verbal prod-
uct information in consumer memory. J Bus Res 2000;47:109 – 20.
Corfman K. Perceptions of relative influence: formation and measurement.
J Mark Res 1991;28:125 – 36 (May).
D’Aveni RA, MacMillan IC. Crisis and the content of managerial commu-
nications: a study of the focus of attention of top managers in surviving
and failing firms. Admin Sci Q 1990;35:634 – 57.
Dawar N, Pillutla MM. Impact of product-harm crises on brand equity:
the moderating role of consumer expectations. J Mark Res 2000;37:
215 – 26.
Duncan T, Moriarty S. Driving brand value: using integrated marketing
to manage profitable stakeholder relationships. New York: McGraw-
Hill, 1997.
Duncan T, Moriarty S. A communication-based marketing model for man-
aging relationships. J Mark 1998;62:1 – 13 (April).
Elsbach KD, Elofson G. How the packaging of decision explanations af-
fects perceptions of trustworthiness. Acad Manage J. 2000;80 – 9.
Fiegenbaum A, Hart S, Schendel D. Strategic reference point theory. Stra-
tegic Manage J 1996;17:219 – 35.
Fombrun CJ. Reputation: realizing value for the corporate image. Cam-
bridge (MA): Harvard Business School Press, 1996.
Fombrun CJ, Shanley MT. What’s in a name? Reputation building and cor-
porate strategy. Acad Manage J 1990;33:233 – 58.
Ghoshal S, Westney DE. Organizing competitor analysis systems. Strategic
Manage J 1991;12:17 – 31.
Gilly MC, Wolfinbarger M. Advertising’s internal audience. J Mark 1998;
62:69 – 88.
Goldberg ME, Hartwick J. The effects of advertiser reputation and extrem-
ity of advertising claim on advertising effectiveness. J Consum Res
1990;17:172 – 9.
Hammer M, Champy J. Reengineering the corporation. New York: Harper,
1993.
Herbig P, Milewicz J, Golden J. A model of reputation building and
destruction. J Bus Res 1994;31:23 – 31 (September).
Hoch SJ, Ha YW. Consumer learning: advertising and the ambiguity of
product experience. J Consum Res 1986;13:221 – 33.
Ilinitch AY, Soderstrom NS, Thomas TE. Measuring corporate environ-
mental performance. J Acc Pub Pol 1998;383 – 408 (Winter).
Kahneman D. Reference points, anchors, norms, and mixed feelings. Org
Behav Hum Dec Proc 1992;51:297 – 312.
Kahneman D, Slovic P, Tversky A. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics
and biases. New York: Cambridge Univ Press, 1982.
Keller KL. Strategic brand management. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice-
Hall, 1998.
Menon G. Are the parts better than the whole? The effects of decomposi-
tional questions on judgments of frequent behaviors. J Mark Res 1997;
34:335 – 46 (August).
Mennon LJ, Landers DW. Advanced techniques for strategic analysis.
Hinsdale (IL): Dryden Press, 1987.
Newell SJ, Goldsmith RE. The development of a scale to measure
perceived corporate credibility. J Bus Res 2001;2:235 – 47.
Pan Y, Lehmann DR. The influence of new brand entry on subjective brand
judgments. J Consum Res 1993;20(1):76 – 86.
Pearce JA, Robinson RB. Strategic management: formulation, implementa-
tion, and control. Burr Ridge (IL): Irwin, 1994.
Pearson CM, Mitroff II. From crisis prone to crisis prepared. Acad Manage
Exec 1993;48 – 59 (February).
Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. Issue involvement can increase or decrease persua-
sion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. J Pers Soc
Psychol 1979;37:1915 – 26.
Petty RE, Cacioppo JT. Communication and persuasion: central and periph-
eral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1986.
Petty RE, Wegener DT. Attitude change: multiple roles for persuasion
variables. In: Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G, editors. The handbook
of social psychology. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 1998. p. 323 – 390.
Venkatraman N. The concept of fit in strategy research: toward verbal and
statistical correspondence. Acad Manage Rev 1989;14:423 – 44.
Viswanathan M, Childers TL. Processing of numerical and verbal product
information. J Consum Psychol 1996;5(4):359 – 85.
Weigelt K, Camerer C. Reputation and corporate strategy: a review of
recent theory and applications. Strategic Manage J 1988;9:443 – 54.