Current issue

The Korean Society for Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 68 , No. 3

[ Article ]
Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies - Vol. 68, No. 2, pp. 5-50
Abbreviation: KSJCS
ISSN: 2586-7369 (Online)
Print publication date 30 Apr 2024
Received 22 Jan 2024 Revised 29 Mar 2024 Accepted 01 Apr 2024

정부 기관 명성의 효과 : 국가보훈처 이해관계자별 명성과 신뢰, 정책수용 간 관련성
차희원** ; 김수진*** ; 유승희****
**이화여자대학교 커뮤니케이션·미디어학부 교수 (
***이화여자대학교 커뮤니케이션·미디어연구소 연구교수 (
****이화여자대학교 커뮤니케이션·미디어연구소 연구교수 (

Effect of Government Reputation : Relationship between Reputation, Trust, and Policy Acceptance among Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs Stakeholders
Heewon Cha** ; Soojin Kim*** ; Seunghee Yoo****
**Professor, Division of Communication & Media, Ewha Womans University, first author (
***Research Professor, Communication·Media Research Institute, Ewha Womans University, corresponding author (
****Research Professor, Communication·Media Research Institute, Ewha Womans University (


본 연구의 목적은 정부 기관 정책수용에 대한 정부 기관 명성과 신뢰의 역할을 검토하는 데 있다. 구체적으로, 명성과 신뢰 그리고 정책수용의 관련성에 있어 이해관계자 집단별 차이와 이슈 관여도의 차이가 있는지 알아보기 위한 연구모형을 설정했다. 정부 기관으로 국가보훈처 사례를 적용하여, 이해관계자는 정부 부처, 유관(시민) 단체, 언론, 학계·전문가, 내부 직원, 그리고 보훈대상자 및 가족으로 6개 집단으로 구분했다. 가설 검증과 연구문제 분석을 위해 유의적 표집을 실시하여, 표본을 대상으로 온라인 설문을 실시했다. 연구결과, 국가보훈처 명성을 긍정적으로 평가하는 이해관계자일수록 국가보훈처에 대한 신뢰가 증가하고 관련 정책에 대한 수용이 높아지는 것으로 나타났다. 조건부과정 모형분석을 통해, 이해관계자별 차이를 검토한 결과, 유관(시민)단체의 경우 다른 이해관계자들에 비해 신뢰에 대한 국가보훈처 명성의 영향력이 작아지는 것으로 나타났다. 또한, 정책수용에 대한 신뢰의 간접효과는 유관(시민)단체를 제외한 모든 집단에서 유의하였다. 이슈 관여도의 경우, 국가유공자 보상 수준 및 형평성 이슈의 관여도가 명성과 신뢰 간 관계를 조절하는 것을 확인하였다. 추가분석으로 6개 이슈에 대한 이해관계자 집단의 이슈 관여도 차이를 분석한 결과, 6개 중 3개의 이슈에서 이해관계자 집단의 차이가 나타났다. 이 연구는 정부 기관의 명성 지표를 적용하여 실제 사례에 적용하여 검토함으로써 정부 기관 명성 관리의 필요성과 방향을 제언했다는 점에 학문적 의미가 있다.


While organizational reputation has received a lot of attention in the corporate communications field, there has been little discussion of reputation in the public realm or of government organizations. A government organization's reputation enables it to gain public support and engagement for its actions, lay the groundwork for dealing with various policy audiences, and appropriately balance the flexibility of its communications. With this in mind, this study seeks to understand how the reputation of a government organization affects the acceptance of its policies. It is necessary to examine whether a government organization's reputation influences policy acceptance, which is known as the reputation effect. We are particularly interested in the role of trust in government organizations in this process, as we want to understand whether the reputation of a government organization can influence trust in that organization. Hence, this study delves into the complex relationship that exists between government agency reputation, stakeholder trust, and policy compliance. We posit a research model to examine whether stakeholder group affiliation and issue involvement moderate the relationship between reputation, trust, and compliance. Two hypotheses and two research questions were extracted and the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs (MPVA) serves as a case study. Stakeholders are categorized into six distinct groups: government ministries, veterans' organizations (representing citizens), media outlets, academic and expert communities, internal employees, and veterans with their families. A survey was administered to MPVA stakeholders to test hypotheses and explore research questions.

Participants were collected by snowball sampling and an online research company sent out a survey link to selected participants. Our findings reveal that positive evaluations of the MPVA's reputation lead to increased stakeholder trust in the agency, which fosters higher compliance with key policies. Using conditional process model analysis, we discovered that reputation had a smaller effect on trust for civic organizations than other stakeholder groups. Notably, the indirect effect of trust on policy adherence held significance for all groups except civic organizations. Furthermore, the analysis identified that the level of veterans' compensation and the degree of involvement in equity issues moderate the reputation-trust relationship. This research contributes meaningfully to the academic domain by highlighting the necessity and direction for government agency reputation management. In addition, the theoretical discussion of issues and publics, including issue categorization and public segmentation, needs to be expanded in order to find positive results on the effect of government reputation. This study advances reputation management strategies by assessing and examining government agency reputation indicators in real-world circumstances.

KeywordsGovernment Agency Reputation, Government Trust, Policy Acceptance, Stakeholders, Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs (MPVA)
키워드: 정부기관 명성, 정부신뢰, 정책수용, 이해관계자, 국가보훈처


국가보훈처는 2023년 6월5일에 국가보훈부로 승격했다. 본 연구에서는 연구 시점의 명칭인 국가보훈처로 표기했다.

1. Anderson, A. (2009). Media, politics and climate change: Towards a new research agenda. Sociology Compass, 3(2), 166-182.
2. Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 411-423.
3. Bae, H. S. (2008). Entertainment-education and recruitment of cornea donors: The role of emotion and issue involvement. Journal of Health Communication, 13(1), 20-36.
4. Bannister, F., & Connolly, R. (2011). Trust and transformational government: A proposed framework for research. Government Information Quarterly, 28(2), 137-147.
5. Barnett, M. L., Jermier, J. M., & Lafferty, B. A. (2006). Corporate reputation: The definitional landscape. Corporate Reputation Review, 9, 26-38.
6. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173.
7. Bromley, D. B. (2001). Relationships between personal and corporate reputation. European Journal of Marketing, 35(3/4), 316-334.
8. Bryson, J. M., Cunningham, G. L., & Lokkesmoe, K. J. (2002). What to do when stakeholders matter: The case of problem formulation for the African American Men Project of Hennepin County, Minnesota. Public Administration Review, 62(5), 568-584.
9. Busuioc, E. M., & Lodge, M. (2016). The reputational basis of public accountability. Governance, 29(2), 247-263.
10. Butler, J. K., Jr. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of trust: Evolution of a conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Management, 17(3), 643-663.
11. Cahill, M., Batista, L., & Kawalek, P. (2004). The recovery of government reputation: Exploring two dimensions of strategy. In Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS 2004).
12. Carpenter, D. (2006). Reputation, gatekeeping, and the politics of post-marketing drug regulation. AMA Journal of Ethics, 8(6), 403-406.
13. Carpenter, D. P. (2010). Reputation and power: Organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
14. Carpenter, D. P., & Krause, G. A. (2012). Reputation and public administration. Public Administration Review, 72(1), 26-32.
15. Carroll, A. B. (1993). Business & society: Ethics & stakeholder management (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: South-Western.
16. Cha, H. W. (2006). The effects of media reputation and issue reputation on corporate reputation by issue attribute. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 50(5), 297-327.
차희원 (2006). 미디어명성(Media Reputation)과 이슈명성(Issue Reputation)이 기업명성(Corporate Reputation)에 미치는 영향: 이슈속성의 차이를 중심으로. <한국언론학보>, 50권 5호, 297-327.
17. Cha, H. W., & Kim, S. J. (2021). A study on the development of reputation index for government agencies: Application of the case of the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs in Korea. The Korean Journal of Advertising, 32(4), 7-33.
차희원·김수진 (2021). 한국의 정부기관 명성지수 개발연구: 국가보훈처 사례의 적용. <광고학연구>, 32권 4호, 7-33.
18. Chanley, V. A., Rudolph, T. J., & Rahn, W. M. (2000). The origins and consequences of public trust in government. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 64(3), 239-256.
19. Cho, H., & Boster, F. J. (2005). Development and validation of value-, outcome-, and impression-relevant involvement scales. Communication Research, 32(2), 235-264.
20. Chapleo, C., Carrillo Durán, M. V., & Castillo Díaz, A. (2011). Do UK universities communicate their brands effectively through their websites?. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 21(1), 25-46.
21. Choi, Y. H., Park, J. M., & Kim, E. K. (2022). What stakeholders are the young people in youth policy? Application of the stakeholder salience model. The Journal of Public Policy and Governance, 15(4), 107-134.
최영훈·박정민·김의경 (2022). 청년정책에서 청년은 어떤 이해관계자인가? 주목가치모형의 적용. <융합사회와 공공정책>, 15권 4호, 107-134.
22. Christensen, T., & Gornitzka, Å. (2019). Reputation management in public agencies: The relevance of time, sector, audience, and tasks. Administration & Society, 51(6), 885-914.
23. Christensen, T., & Lodge, M. (2016). Accountability, transparency and societal security. In The Routledge handbook to accountability and welfare state reforms in Europe (pp. 179-193). Routledge.
24. Chung, W. J., & Choi, J. B. (2014). An interactive analysis of public segmentation and the national veterans affairs education on the participatory intentions among college students: An application of situational theory of publics and experiential learning theory. Journal of Public Relations, 18(2), 248-279.
정원준·최진봉 (2014). 공중의 세분화로 분석한 국가 보훈행사에 대한 젊은 세대의 참여도 차이와 활성화 방안에 대한 연구: 보훈 교육의 효과를 중심으로. <PR 연구>, 18권 2호, 248-279.
25. Colmar Brunton. (2016). Public sector reputation index. Retrieved 4/16/24 from
26. Da Silva, R., & Batista, L. (2007). Boosting government reputation through CRM. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 20(7), 588-607.
27. Dowling, G. R. (2004). Journalists’ evaluation of corporate reputations. Corporate Reputation Review, 7(2), 196-205.
28. Druckman, D. (1994). Nationalism, patriotism, and group loyalty: A social psychological perspective. Mershon International Studies Review, 38(Supplement_1), 43-68.
29. Elias, A. A., Cavana, R. Y., & Jackson, L. S. (2002). Stakeholder analysis for R&D project management. R&D Management, 32(4), 301-310.
30. Hetherington, M. J. (1998). The political relevance of political trust. American Political Science Review, 92(4), 791-808.
31. Fombrun, C. J. (1996) Reputation: Realizing value from the corporate image, Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
32. Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic managemewnt: A stakeholder approach. Boston, MA: Pitman.
33. Grunig, J. E. (1993). Implications of public relations for other domains of communication. Journal of Communication, 43(3), 164-173.
34. Ha, S. K. (2003). Present condition of policy noncompliance and relative influence verification of noncompliance factors. The Korean Journal of Local Government Studies, 7(3), 83-105.
하상근 (2003). 정책불응의 현황 및 불응요인의 상대적 영향력 검증: 국민연금정책을 중심으로. <지방정부연구>, 7권 3호, 83-105.
35. Hall, R. (1993). A framework linking intangible resources and capabiliites to sustainable competitive advantage. Strategic Management Journal, 14(8), 607-618.
36. Hamilton, P. K. (1992). Grunig’s situational theory: A replication, application, and extension. Journal of Public Relations Research, 4(3), 123-149.
37. Hamma, H., & Jagers, S. C. (2006). Can trust in politicians explain individuals’ support for climate policy? The case of CO2 tax. Climate Policy, 5, 613-625.
38. Harring, N., & Jagers, S. C. (2013). Should we trust in values? Explaining public support for pro-environmental taxes. Sustainability, 5(1), 210-227.
39. Helbig, N., Dawes, S., Dzhusupova, Z., Klievink, B., & Mkude, C. G. (2015). Stakeholder engagement in policy development: observations and lessons from international experience. M. Janssen, M. A. Wimmer, & A. Deljoo (Eds.), Policy practice and digital science: Integrating complex systems, social simulation and public administration in policy research (pp. 177-204). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
40. Hetherington, M. J. (2005). Why trust matters: Declining political trust and the demise of american liberalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
41. Hubbell, A. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Gee, J. C. (2001). The relative effects of timing of suspicion and outcome involvement on biased message processing. Communication Monographs, 68(2), 115-132.
42. Hwang, C. H., Eom, Y. H., & Lee, N, K. (2021). A study on the effective use of policy tools: Focusing on policy fashion, stakeholders, social norms, organizational inertia. Modern Society and Public Administration, 31(1), 87-110.
황창호·엄영호·이남국 (2021). 정책수단의 효과적 활용에 관한 연구: 정책유행·이해관계자·사회규범·조직관성을 중심으로. <현대사회와 행정>, 31권 1호, 87-110.
43. Hwang, S. W., Kim, T. W., & Kim, E. J. (2018). How does president’s policy message affect the perception of president’s communication with stakeholder and people’s mutual policy communication? Advertising Research, 116, 108-137.
황성욱·김태완·김은진 (2018). 대통령의 정책 메시지 특성이 이해관계자들과의 소통에 대한 인식 및 국민의 정책 소통 활성화에 미치는 영향. <광고연구>, 116호, 108-137.
44. Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (1989). Effects of involvement on persuasion: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 106(2), 290-314.
45. Jun, D. S., Kwon, I. O., & Jung, K. H. (2013). The study of trust in government: A comparative analysis of confidence in president and evaluation of government policy. Korean Policy Studies Review, 22(2), 181-206.
전대성·권일웅·정광호 (2013). 정부신뢰에 대한 연구 -대통령에 대한 신뢰와 정부정책에 대한 평가 비교를 중심으로-. <한국정책학회보>, 22권 2호, 181-206.
46. Jung, C. H., & Park, C. S. (2015). What is the heart of policy problems on cultural property maintenance policy in Korea? The comparative analysis on the policy problem definition of policy stakeholders focusing on the Sungnyemun restoration. Chung-Ang Public Administration Review, 29(1), 79-106.
정창호·박치성 (2015). 문화재보수정비 이해관계자 정책문제 비교연구: 숭례문 복원사례를 중심으로. <국가정책연구>, 29권 1호, 79-106.
47. Jung, S. K. (2011). The directions for development of veterans policy post Lee Myeong Bak’s regime. Korea Citation Index Academic Journal, 10(4), 199-230.
정숙경 (2011). 이명박 정부 이후 보훈정책의 발전방향. <한국보훈논총>, 10권 4호, 199-230.
48. Kasperson, J. X., Kasperson, R. E., Pidgeon, N., & Slovic, P. (2003). The social amplification of risk: Assessing fifteen years of research and theory. In N. Pidgeon, R. E. Kasperson, & P. Slovic(Eds.), The social amplification of risk (pp. 13–46). Cambridge, UK: University of Cambridge Press.
49. Kallbekken, S., & Sælen, H. (2011). Public acceptance for environmental taxes: Self-interest, environmental and distributional concerns. Energy Policy, 39(5), 2966-2973.
50. Kim, D. W., Choi, M. I., & Kim, H. S. (2022). Co-orientation Analysis of veterans affairs policy between officials in the Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs, and Korean Publics. Journal of Public Relations, 26(3), 133-166.
김대욱·최명일·김학신 (2022). 국가 보훈 정책에 대한 상호지향성 분석: 예우 정책에 대한 국가 보훈처 공무원과 일반 국민 인식을 중심으로. <PR 연구>, 26권 3호, 133-166.
51. Kim, E. S. (2022). Analysis of national veterans policy and research on development plan. Journal of Patriots and Veterans Affairs in the Republic of Korea, 21(1), 113-138.
김의식 (2022). 국가보훈정책 실태분석과 발전방안 연구. <한국보훈논총>, 21권 1호, 113-138.
52. Kim, I. S., & Choi, Y. H. (2021). Identifying and defining stakeholders in housing policy: An application of stakeholder salience model. Korean Journal of Policy Analysis and Evaluation, 31(4), 1-22.
김인수·최영훈 (2021). 부동산정책의 이해관계자 분석: 주목가치 모형의 적용. <정책분석평가학회보>, 31권 4호, 1-22.
53. Kim, J. S, & Hwang, C. H. (2021). Effect of perception of administrative value on government trust: focused on the mediating effect of policy support. Korean Public Administration Quarterly, 33(2), 283-307.
김정숙·황창호 (2021). 행정이념에 대한 인식이 정부신뢰에 미치는 영향: 정책지지의 매개효과를 중심으로. <한국행정논집>, 33권 2호, 283-307.
54. Kim, K. B., Chai, K. J., & Son. H. J. (2012). Trust of local government and policy compliance: With reference to the policy of Gyeonggi-Do. Korean Studies Information Service System Academic Journal, 16(4), 267-287.
김관보·채경진·손호중 (2012). 지방정부 신뢰와 정책순응: 경기도정을 중심으로. <지방정부연구>, 16권 4호, 267-287.
55. Kim, S. J., & Kim, Y. W. (2019). The effects of cultural bias on climate change policy compliance and support: Mediating effects of risk perception, emotion, and efficacy. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies, 63(4), 230-274.
김수진·김영욱 (2019). 문화적 편향이 기후변화 정책 순응과 지지에 미치는 영향: 위험인식, 감정, 효능감의 매개 효과 중심 분석. <한국언론학보>, 63권 4호, 230-274.
56. Kim, Y. W., & Oh, M. Y. (2005). Relationships among patriotism, consumer ethnocentrism, country of origin image, product, and purchase intention and the influence of perception of economic. The Korean Journal of Advertising, 16(2), 73-99.
김영욱·오미영 (2005). 애국심, 소비자 자민족중심성향, 원산지 이미지, 제품에 대한 태도, 구매의도간의 관계와 경쟁관계에 대한 인식이 이들 변수간의 관계에 미치는 영향. <광고학연구>, 16권 2호, 73-99.
57. Kizil, C., & Atalan, A. (2015). Image and reputation of Yalova City: A study on Yalova University students. Emerging Markets Journal (EMAJ), University of Pittsburgh Press (USA), 5(2), 71-78.
58. Lee, D., & van Ryzin, G. G. (2018). Measuring bureaucratic reputation: Scale development and validation. Governance, 32(1), 177-192.
59. Lee, H. B., & Kim, Y. K. (2011). A study on the relationship between corporate reputation and brand equity: Focus on the influence of corporate reputation on the brand equity. The Korean Journal of Advertising, 22(2), 97-127.
이효복·김유경 (2011). 기업명성과 브랜드 자산의 관계에 관한 연구: 기업명성이 브랜드 자산에 미치는 영향을 중심으로. <광고학연구>, 22권 2호, 97-127.
60. Lee, H. O., Kim, S. Y., & Son, S. W. (2010). The effects of ingratiation strategy during corporate crisis. Journal of Public Relations, 14(1), 5-32.
이현우·손승우·김소윤 (2010). 기업 위기 상황에서의 환심 사기 전략의 효과. <PR 연구>, 14권 1호, 5-32.
61. Lee, J., Yoo, S. H., & Kim, S. (2022). Factors affecting digital civic engagement in the perspective of Public Relations: Focusing on the issue value type, Journal of Public Relations, 26(2), 1-33.
이준희·유승희·김수진 (2022). PR 커뮤니케이션 관점의 디지털 시민참여에 대한 영향요인 연구: 이슈 가치 유형을 중심으로. <PR 연구>, 26권 2호, 1-33.
62. Lee, S. W. (1993). (An) Empirical study on the determinants of trust in the sixth republican government in Korea. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
이시원 (1993). <정부신뢰의 영향요인에 관한 연구: 제6공화국 정부에 대한 태도조사를 중심으로>. 서울대학교 대학원 박사학위 논문.
63. Lee, Y. J., & Han, E. K. (2010). An exploratory study for development of a city reputation scale: Focusing on stakeholder relationships. Advertising Research, 87, 392-415.
이용진·한은경 (2010). 도시평판의 척도개발을 위한 탐색적 연구: 이해관계자 관계성을 중심으로. <광고연구>, 87호, 392-415.
64. Linder, S. H., & Peters, B. G. (2017). An institutional approach to the theory of policymaking: The role of guidance mechanisms in policy formulation. Annual Review of Policy Design, 5(1), 1-25.
65. López-López, V., Iglesias-Antelo, S., Vázquez-Sanmartín, A., Connolly, R., & Bannister, F. (2018). E-Government, transparency & reputation: An empirical study of Spanish local government. Information Systems Management, 35(4), 276-293.
66. López-Navarro, M. Á., Llorens-Monzonís, J., & Tortosa-Edo, V. (2013). The effect of social trust on citizens’ health risk perception in the context of a petrochemical industrial complex. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10(1), 399-416.
67. Luoma-Aho, V. (2007). Neutral reputation and public sector organizations. Corporate Reputation Review, 10, 124-143.
68. Luoma-aho, V., & E. Makikangas, M. (2014). Do public sector mergers (re) shape reputation?. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 27(1), 39-52.
69. Mallinckrodt, B., Abraham, W. T., Wei, M., & Russell, D. W. (2006). Advances in testing the statistical significance of mediation effects. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 53(3), 372-378.
70. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(2), 404-437.
71. Miller, A. H. (1974). Political issues and trust in government: 1964-1970. American Political Science Review, 68(3), 951-972.
72. Min, H. M., & Cha, H. W. (2018). The effect of negative issue ownership on crisis communication and corporate reputation: Focused on organizationpublic relationship. The Korean Journal of Advertising, 29(3), 121-152.
민혜민·차희원 (2018). 부정적 이슈소유권이 위기커뮤니케이션과 기업명성에 미치는 영향: 공중관계성의 조절효과를 중심으로. <광고학연구>, 29권 3호, 121-152.
73. Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder idenfication and salience: Defining the principle of who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
74. Navarro-Chávez, C., Delfín-Ortega, O. V., & Moreno Manzo, J. M. (2022). Municipal evaluation in Mexico: A measurement of the government reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 25(2), 106-121.
75. Oh, K. M., & Park, H. S. (2002). Articles of general interest: The level of public trust in government and its comparisons. Korean Policy Studies Review, 11(3), 113-137.
오경민·박흥식 (2002). 정부신뢰 수준의 측정과 비교에 관한 연구. <한국정책학회보>, 11권 3호, 113-137.
76. Overman, S., Busuioc, M., & Wood, M. (2020). Multidimensional reputation barometer for public agencies: A validated instrument. Public Administration Review, 80(3), 415-425.
77. Park, B. S., & Kang, T. H. (1998). The decision analysis of public facility siting - In the focus of landfill sites. Korean Public Administration Review, 32(4), 239-255.
박병식·강태호 (1998). 공공시설 입지결정에 관한 연구: 쓰레기매립장을 중심으로. <한국행정학보>, 32권 4호, 239-255.
78. Park, C. M., & Bae, J. H. (2011). Sources of trust in government: Policy outcomes, processes and outputs. Journal of Governmental Studies, 17(2), 117-143.
박종민·배정현 (2011). 정부신뢰의 원인: 정책결과, 과정 및 산출. <정부학연구>, 17권 2호, 117-143.
79. Park, H. S. (2016). A review of the last sixty years of administrative responsibility in Korea: Administrative control, administrative ethics, and bureaucratic corruption. Korean Public Administration Review, 50(5), 339-366.
박흥식 (2016). 한국 행정책임 연구 60년. <한국행정학보>, 50권 5호, 339-366.
80. Park, H. S. (2021). The relationship between trust in government, ideology and policy attitude: Focusing on public support for expanding government spending. Journal of Social Science, 60(2), 549-574
.박현신 (2021). 정부신뢰와 이념 그리고 정책태도 간 관계: 정부지출 확대에 대한 지지를 중심으로. <사회과학연구>, 60권 2호, 549-574.
81. Park, J. H. (2008). Government trust and policy support: The case of national electronic ID policy. Korean Journal of Public Administration, 46(1), 93-122.
박정훈 (2008). 정부신뢰와 정책수용: 전자주민카드 정책을 중심으로. <행정논총>, 46권 1호, 93-122.
82. Park, J. H., & Shin, J. H. (2010). Government trust, policy efficacy, and policy support: Residential area CCTV policy in Korea. Korean Journal of Public Administration, 48(3), 1-24.
박정훈·신정희 (2010). 정부신뢰, 정책효능성, 정책지지간의 연관성 실증연구: 주거지역내 CCTV 설치 정책을 중심으로. <행정논총>, 48권 3호, 1-24.
83. Park, S. A. (2006). Perceptions toward government and government trust: Focusing on undergraduate students in Korea. Korean Public Administration Review, 40(2), 73-97.
박순애 (2006). 정부에 대한 이해와 정부 신뢰의 관계. <한국행정학보>, 40권 2호, 73-97.
84. Park, T. H. (2000, June). Reliability of Korean government and market economy. Paper presented at the Summer Conference of Korean Association for Public Administration, Gyeongnam.
박통희 (2000, 6월). <한국정부의 신뢰성과 시장경제>. 한국행정학회 하계학술대회. 경남: 삼성산청연수소.
85. Park, Y. C., Yun, S. J., & Shin, D. J. (2004). A study on policy compliance of environmental policy enforcement target group: Focusing on the case of resource recovery facility in Guri-si. Paper presented at the Spring Conference of Korean Association for Public Administration, Conference proceeding, 756-774.
박용치·윤순진·신동주 (2004). <제3회의: 환경정책집행 대상집단의 정책순응에 관한 연구: 구리시 자원회수시설의 사례를 중심으로>. 한국행정학회 춘계학술발표논문집. 756-774
86. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1915-1926.
87. Raithel, S., & Schwaiger, M. (2015). The effects of corporate reputation perceptions of the general public on shareholder value. Strategic Management Journal, 36(6), 945-956.
88. Rodriguez-Sanchez, C., Schuitema, G., Claudy, M., & Sancho-Esper, F. (2018). How trust and emotions influence policy acceptance: The case of the Irish water charges. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(3), 610-629.
89. Schroeder, S. A., Landon, A. C., Fulton, D. C., & McInenly, L. E. (2021). Social identity, values, and trust in government: How stakeholder group, ideology, and wildlife value orientations relate to trust in a state agency for wildlife management. Biological Conservation, 261, 109285.
90. Schwaiger, M. (2004). Components and parameters of corporate reputation-An empirical study. Schmalenbach Business Review, 56, 46-71.
91. Schwartz, S. H., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of research in personality, 38(3), 230-255.
92. Sears, D. O., & Citrin, J. (1982). Tax revolt: Something for nothing in California. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
93. Shultz, K. (1995). The politics of the political business cycle. British Journal of Political Science, 25(1), 79-99.
94. Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., & Roth, C. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20(3), 353-362.
95. Sommestad, T., Hallberg, J., Lundholm, K., & Bengtsson, J. (2014). Variables influencing information security policy compliance: A systematic review of quantitative studies. Information Management & Computer Security, 22(1), 42-75.
96. Son, H. J., & Chai, W. H. (2005). The analyzing of factors influencing trust in government. Korean Public Administration Review, 39(3), 87-114.
손호중·채원호 (2005). 정부신뢰의 영향요인에 관한 연구: 부안군 원전수거물처리장 입지사례를 중심으로. <한국행정학보>, 39권 3호, 87-114.
97. Starik, M. (1994). What is a stakeholder? Essay by Mark Starik. In the Toronto conference: Reflections on stakeholder theory. Business and Society, 33(1), 89-95.
98. Suh, M. G. (2001). Governance and trust in South Korea. Korean Journal of Sociology, 35(5), 119-146.
서문기 (2001). 한국사회의 정부신뢰구조. <한국사회학>, 35권 5호, 119-146.
99. Van Der Merwe, A. W., & Puth, G. (2014). Towards a conceptual model of the relationship between corporate trust and corporate reputation. Corporate Reputation Review, 17, 138-156.
100. Vlasic, B., & Kessler, A. M. (2015, September 21). It took E.P.A. pressure to get VW to admit fault. The New York Times. Retrieved 4/16/24 from
101. Wæraas, A. (2018). Putting on the velvet glove: The paradox of “soft” core values in “hard” organizations. Administration & Society, 50(1), 53-77.
102. Wæraas, A., & Byrkjeflot, H. (2012). Public sector organizations and reputation management: Five problems. International Public Management Journal, 15(2), 186-206.
103. Welch, E. W., Hinnant, C. C., & Moon, M. J. (2005). Linking citizen satisfaction with e-government and trust in government. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15(3), 371-391.
104. 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, 27(2), 175-192.
105. Yoo, S. H., & Cha, H. W. (2015). Influence of crisis responsibility, reputational crisis, and crisis response strategies on the crisis communication effect and corporate reputation: Mediation effects of emotion. The Korean Journal of Advertising, 26(7), 27-57.
유승희·차희원 (2015). 위기책임성, 명성위기유형, 위기대응전략이 메시지효과와 기업명성에 미치는 영향: 정서의 매개효과. <광고학연구>, 26권 7호, 27-57.
106. Yoo, S. H., & Cha, H. W. (2019). The effect of SNS characteristics and dialogic communication on trust in government and public policy support: Focused on policy typology. The Korean Journal of Advertising, 30(2), 105-132.
유승희·차희원 (2019). SNS의 특성과 대화 커뮤니케이션이 정부신뢰 및 정책지지에 미치는 영향: 정책 유형별 비교를 중심으로. <광고학연구>, 30권 2호, 105-132.