Thirteen years ago, a study was conducted in which authors opened a question of applying co-orientation theory in studying communication behavior between two countries. The original study had two primary objectives: to compare attitudes toward certain issues relevant for the two nations and to examine degrees of agreement, accuracy, and congruency between two nations under the co-orientation model. The original study was later extended with another one in which authors included a third country and introduced not only evaluations of two countries’ attitudes toward a third country but also evaluations of opinions the two countries have between themselves (and to which the first is only an observer). They called it “second-order co-orientation.” More than a decade later, the original study was replicated to test how potential agreement, accuracy, and congruency between the two counties on these issues have changed over time.
AveryE.LariscyR.SweetserK. D. (2010). Social media and shared—or divergent—uses? A coorientation analysis of public relations practitioners and journalists. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 4, 189-205.
2.
BroomG. M. (1978). Coorientational measurement of public issues. Public Relations Review, 3, 110-119.
3.
BroomG. M.CaseyS.RitcheyJ. (1997). Toward a concept and theory of organization-public relationships. Journal of Public Relations Research, 9, 83-98.
4.
BroomG. M.DozierD. M. (1990). Using research in public relations: Application to program management. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
5.
BroomG. M.ShaB. L. (2013). Cutlip and Center’s effective public relations: International edition (11th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
6.
CadierD.LightM. (2015). Conclusion: Foreign policy as the continuation of domestic politics by other means. In CadierD.LightM. (Eds.), Russia’s foreign policy: Ideas, domestic politics and external relations (pp. 204-216). Basingstoke, England: Palgrave Macmillan.
7.
ClemonsD. C. (2009). Coorientation of the public relations role within the public sector (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3344937)
8.
CulbertsonH. M.ChenN. (1992). International public relations: A comparative analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
9.
CutlipS. M.CenterA. H.BroomG. M. (1999). Effective public relations (8th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
10.
DozierD. M.EhlingW. P. (1992). Evaluation of public relations programs: What the literature tells us about their effects. In GrunigJ. (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communications management (pp. 159-184). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
GoutzamaniE. (2016). Co-orientation theory. In CarrollC. E. (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of corporate reputation (pp. 159-162). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
13.
GrunigJ. E.HuntT. (1984). Managing public relations. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
14.
HeiderF. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York, NY: John Wiley.
KimJ. (2016). Public relations and public diplomacy in cultural and educational exchange programs: A coorientational approach to the Humphrey Program. Public Relations Review, 42, 135-145.
18.
LeongK. M.McComasK. A.DeckerD. J. (2007). Matching the forum to the fuss: Using coordination contexts to address the paradox of public participation in natural resource management. Environmental Practice, 9, 195-205.
19.
L’EtangJ. (2006). Public relations as diplomacy. In L’EtangJ.PieczkaM. (Eds.), Public relations: Critical debates and contemporary practice (pp. 373-388). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
MacnamaraJ. (2012). Corporate and organizational diplomacy: An alternative paradigm to PR. Journal of Communication Management, 16, 312-325.
21.
McLeodJ.ChaffeeS. (1973). Interpersonal approaches to communication research in interpersonal perception and communication. American Behavioral Scientist, 16, 483-488.
22.
PlavšakK. (2002). Communicative diplomacy for the 3rd millennium: Soft power of small countries like Slovenia? In NewmanB. I.Tkalac VerčičA. (Eds.), Communication of politics: Cross-cultural theory building in the practice of public relations and political marketing (pp. 109-122). New York, NY: Haworth Press.
23.
ScheffT. J. (1967). Toward a sociological model of consensus. American Sociological Review, 32(1), 32-46.
24.
ShawT.WhiteC. (2004). Public relations and journalism educators’ perceptions of media relations. Public Relations Review, 30, 493-502.
25.
ShinJ. H.CameronG. T. (2005). Different sides of the same coin: Mixed views of public relations practitioners and journalists for strategic conflict management. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 82, 318-338.
26.
SignitzerB. H.CoombsT. (1992). Public relations and public diplomacy: Conceptual convergences. Public Relations Review, 18, 137-147.
27.
SrirameshK.VerčičD. (Eds.). (2009). The global public relations handbook: Theory, research, and practice (Expanded and Rev. ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
StegallS.SandersK. P. (1986). Coorientation of PR practitioners and news personnel in education news. Journalism Quarterly, 63, 341-393.
29.
TilsonD. J.AlozieE. C. (Eds.). (2004). Toward the common good: Perspectives in international public relations. Boston, MA: Pearson.
30.
Tkalac VerčičA.ColićV. (2016). Journalists and public relations practitioners: A coorientational analysis. Public Relations Review, 42, 522-529.
31.
Tkalac VerčičA.LalićD.VujičićD. (2017). Journalists and public relations specialists: Comparing two countries. Public Relations Review, 43, 527-536.
32.
van DykeM. A.VerčičD. (2009). Public relations, public diplomacy, and strategic communication: An international model of conceptual convergence. In SrirameshK.VerčičD. (Eds.), The global public relations handbook: Theory, research, and practice (Expanded and Rev. ed., pp. 822-842). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
VerčičD.RazpetA.DeklevaS.ŠlencM. (2001). International public relations and the Internet: Diffusion and linkages. Journal of Communication Management, 5, 125-137.
34.
VerčičD.Tkalac VerčičA. (2007). A use of second-order co-orientation model in international public relations. Public Relations Review, 33, 407-414.
35.
VerčičD.Tkalac VerčičA.LacoK. (2006). Coorientation theory in international relations: The case of Slovenia and Croatia. Public Relations Review, 32, 1-9.
36.
WaldenJ.BortreeD.DiStasoM. (2015). Reconsidering the public relations professional–blogger relationship: A coorientation study. Public Relations Review, 41, 526-532.
37.
YunS. H.YoonH. (2011). Are “journalists” own problems’ aggravating their hostility toward public relations? A study of Korean journalists. Public Relations Review, 37, 305-313.
