This roundtable discussion is provided by the IPR Measurement CommissionMembers of the IPR Measurement Commission gathered virtually to discuss disinformation in the evolving communication landscape. IPR Measurement Commission member Chelsea Mirkin, Head of Global Analysis at Cision, and Antony Cousins, Executive Director for AI Strategy at Cision, moderated the discussion.Participants discussed how the rise of artificial intelligence (AI) is impacting disinformation and how PR professionals can advise the C-suite on how to respond to disinformation threats.Key themes from the discussion include :— Disinformation was defined by the group as information that was shared with the intent to mislead.—- Misinformation was defined as false information that was shared because the communicator genuinely believes the false content, with no intent to mislead.—– Misinformation is the symptom of a larger problem. Disinformation is the spark of the inaccurate content.— Public relations professionals should be proactive and control the narrative so when disinformation does spread, the company is able to show the process and the facts to correct the information.— Truth is an interpretation; describing content as “accurate” or “inaccurate” as opposed to “mis-/disinformation” or “false information” can establish the difference between opinion and accuracy.— Disinformation makes output measures less relevant and should lead communicators to question if the metrics are listening in the right places.— Generative AI will have a large impact on disinformation. Experts agreed that it is essential for communicators to make sure that data are correct when using generative AI tools.—– Tracking this data is an increasingly important responsibility.—– People are needed to measure model accuracy and intercede if the information is wrong.— While trust in media has decreased, it’s important not to cast blanket statements over all forms of media.—– In the U.S., local media is a trusted source. PR professionals should be selective when it comes to the channels they use for building reputation.— The U.S. is only a small entity on the global scale, and global brands need to consider different societies when determining their sources.—– General sentiment toward AI differs depending on the country.— Prioritization is key to combatting disinformation; what does the company prioritize and what could damage its reputation?—– Occasionally, responding to disinformation can make it a bigger issue than it was originally.— Communicators should measure media channels as well as consumer mindsets, and analyze the gap between them in order to discern which topics drive outcomes.—- This analysis highlights the difference between what the media is saying and how consumers are interpreting it.— When monitoring topics, it’s important to discern when a conversation involving disinformation is attracting less informed groups and when it is attracting experts.—– Public relations professionals can show data to guide misinformed experts before the issue is shared on a larger scale. ...

This summary is provided by the IPR Center for Diversity, Equity, and InclusionPew Research Center examined American’s feelings toward the Black Lives Matter movement ten years after the hashtag BlackLivesMatter was first used on Twitter, and three years after the murder of George Floyd. A survey of 5,073 U.S adults was conducted from April 10-16, 2023.Key findings include:— 51% of U.S. adults say they support the Black Lives Matter movement, compared to two-thirds of U.S. adults who said the same in 2020.—- 81% of Black adults said they support the movement, followed by Asian adults (63%), Hispanic adults (61%), and white adults (42%).— 88% of Americans have seen videos showing police violence against Black people through some form of media.—- 60% of those who had watched the videos said it negatively affected their trust in the police.— 57% of respondents do not believe that the focus on issues of police violence against Black people has led to meaningful changes to improve the lives of Black Americans.Read the full report here.  ...

Dr. Jay Hmielowski and Dr. Eliana DuBosar researched how the places that people come from played a role in how they perceived and trusted journalists and the media.A pilot study was conducted in 2019 followed by a time series study in 2020 that included a total sample of 7,545 participants.Key findings include:— Respondents who lived in rural areas held less positive feelings toward journalists compared to respondents who lived in urban areas.—- The gap between rural and urban was higher amongst those who placed more importance on their place-based identities.—- Respondents who identified as “country people” reported less positive feelings toward journalists compared with “suburban” and “city” people.— Respondents that felt more positive feelings toward journalists among urban residents were more likely to use print and TV news outlets compared to those who identified as rural residents.— Small town and suburban respondents held more moderate feelings toward journalists, regardless of the importance placed on their place-identity.Find the original study here. ...

This roundtable discussion is provided by the IPR Center for Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Members of the IPR Center for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (CDEI) gathered virtually to discuss the connection between diversity, equity, and inclusion (DE&I) and mental health. IPR CDEI member Dr. Jen Vardeman, Associate Professor at the University of Houston, moderated the discussion. Participants discussed the intersection of mental health, DE&I, and public relations, and ways employers can normalize prioritizing mental health in the workplace. Key themes from the discussion include:— Mental health is seen as a luxury in the public relations field, yet it is the next frontier of diversity and inclusion.—– Experts in the discussion either had a negative association between mental health and public relations or didn’t consider the two concepts to be related at all.— Leaders need to have empathy and compassion in an industry that’s “always on.”—– There is a disconnect between advocating for DE&I and seeing it implemented in the industry or in academia.— Health challenges can quickly turn into mental health challenges as well if an employee or student is not given the resources necessary for recovery.— A lack of safe spaces can lead to a feedback loop of practitioners and academics losing faith in their institution and leaving, creating a lack of advocacy for entry level practitioners, academics, or students.— Company-wide days off or hybrid work environments were identified as ways to ease stress in the workplace.— However, many issues being experienced in the workplace are the result of larger societal problems.—– Solutions such as shortened workweeks or higher pay may not work long-term.— Open, honest and transparent communication from leaders and peers, especially about the importance of mental health, was identified as a way to create a better workplace environment.—– Examples of this are leaders asking what they can do for their employees, and listening even if they can’t help.—– Examples in academia are asking about campus environment and concerns that faculty or students might have. Resources:Long COVID and Mental Health Supporting the Well-Being of Your Underrepresented Employees How to Make Emotional Wellness a Part of Your DEI Strategy The Second Shift ...

Download the Full Report : Disabilities in the Workplace Report (PDF)Watch the Webinar: Disabilities in the Workplace Report DiscussionDownload the Press Releases: News release for Communications Professionals (PDF)News Release for Human Resources (PDF) Institute for Public Relations and Voya Financial have partnered on a comprehensive report, “Disabilities in the Workplace: Culture, Communication, Support, and Inclusion” that analyzes a survey of 1,014 employees to determine how organizations support and communicate about disabilities and caregiving in the workplace.Introduction: Little research has been conducted regarding employee perceptions of diversity priorities and inclusion and how well initiatives and programs are communicated within organizations. In 2020, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 17% of people with a disability were employed compared to the 61% of people without a disability. According to a report from Bentley University, more than two-thirds of disabilities are “invisible,” meaning disabilities cannot be observed or are not visually detectable. The Bentley University report also found that while more than two-thirds of workplace leaders believe their technological arrangements and cultures are supportive of employees with disabilities, fewer than half of those with disabilities agree.While Disability:IN has seen participation in its annual Disability Equality Index increase year-over- year, an Institute for Public Relations (IPR) study found executive support of those with disabilities may not be communicated effectively through organizations. In the 2021 IPR Language of Diversity study, of communication professionals, only 24% said, “physical abilities and disabilities” were rated as a “high priority” for their organization’s diversity, equity and inclusion (DE&I)initiatives, while only 14% said the same about neurodiversity (e.g., ADHD, autism, etc.). Compared to other categories of diversity, disabilities was one of the lowest-ranked. Disabilities or becoming a caregiver of those with disabilities can affect anyone at any point in their lives.In January 2023, IPR and Voya Financial surveyed 1,014 employees in organizations with more than 15 full-time employees to determine how well organizations communicate about and support disabilities and inclusion in the workplace. Full Report: Some Key Findings: More than half of people with disabilities have witnessed or experienced both macroaggressions and microaggressions toward individuals with disabilities at least a few times a year in the workplace.Forty percent of respondents were not familiar with the organization’s position or strategic plan related to disabilities in the workplace.Only slightly more than one-third of employees were “very familiar” with an organization’s position or strategic plan on how best to support individuals with a disability. In fact, 4-in-10 respondents were unfamiliar or “slightly familiar” with their organization’s plan. For organizations to be effective with their programs, employees must be well-versed in the strategy as they influence the culture of the organization.Slightly more than half of employees said their company effectively communicated internally and externally about leadership’s commitment to disability inclusion.Both employees with and without disabilities wanted to learn more about disability inclusion within the organization.More than half of their employees (53%) without disabilities and 72% of those with disabilities were interested in learning more about disabilities within their organization, offering a great opportunity for organizations.Despite nearly three-quarters (73%) of employees saying they want to see people with disabilities represented in commercials, advertisements, and social media, only one-third said their organization actually features people with disabilities on these channels. Only 36% said their company featured individuals with disabilities in commercials or advertisements and 39% said they were included in their internal or employee-focused communications (39%).People with disabilities and caregivers thought their organizations did a better job communicating about supporting people with disabilities and their caregivers than people without disabilities.One-in-three people who have a disability and one-in-five caregivers have not disclosed their disability or caregiving responsibilities to their employer.At least 4-in-10 respondents with disabilities had to scale back their hours (41%) or leave their job (49%) due to their disability, affecting retention. Similarly, nearly 5-in-10 caregivers (48%) had to scale back their hours and 34% had to leave their job. People who did not disclose their disability to their employer were concerned about being fired, ridiculed, orretaliated against. Methodology: IPR and Voya Financial surveyed 1,014 employees in organizations with more than 15 full-time employees to determine how well organizations communicate about and support disabilities and inclusion in the workplace.One hundred and eighty-seven respondents identified as an individual with disabilities either currently or in the past, and 242 respondents said they had or have had caregiving responsibilities for an individual with a disability. Prior to taking the survey, employees were provided definitions of the scope of disabilities and the definition of a caregiver for consistency purposes (see Appendix for definitions and methodology).*IPR is a separate entity and not a corporate affiliate of Voya Financial®. About the Institute for Public RelationsFounded in 1956, the Institute for Public Relations is an independent, nonprofit foundation dedicated to the science beneath the art of public relations™. IPR creates, curates, and promotes research and initiatives that empower professionals with actionable insights and intelligence they can put to immediate use. IPR predicts and analyzes global factors transforming the profession and amplifies and engages the profession globally through thought leadership and programming. All research is available free at www.instituteforpr.org and provides the basis for IPR’s professional conferences and events.Media Contact:Brittany HigginbothamCommunications & Digital Specialistbrittany@instituteforpr.org352-392-0280 ...

The Associated Press and the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago examined Americans’ confidence levels in science and medicine related to their political affiliation.A survey of 3,544 U.S. adults was conducted May 5 – Dec. 20, 2022.Key findings include:— 39% of U.S. adults overall said they had “a great deal of confidence” in the scientific community.—– This number is down from 48% in 2021.—– 53% of Democrats reported “a great deal of confidence” in the scientific community compared to 55% in 2018.—– 22% of Republicans said they had “a great deal of confidence” in the scientific community compared to 45% in 2018.— 34% of Americans reported “a great deal of confidence” in medicine, compared to 39% before the pandemic.— Although confidence in the scientific community has declined in recent years, this community is still more trusted than other institutions in America including the press (7%), organized religion (19%), and education (25%).Full report here ...

Pew Research Center examined journalists’ concerns and perspectives on changes in the news industry.A survey of 11,889 U.S.-based journalists was conducted from Feb. 16 – March 17, 2022. Key findings include:— 57% of journalists say they are extremely or very concerned about possible restrictions on U.S. press freedoms.— Journalists aged 65+ years were the most concerned age group; 42% reported they are feeling extremely concerned.—– 39% in the 50-64 year old age group were extremely concerned, followed by ages 30-49 (28%) and ages 18-29 (20%). — 65% of journalists who have more than 20 years of experience are extremely or very concerned about press freedoms, compared to 45% of journalists with five years or less.— Concern remains consistent across types of news outlets and local, state or national news.—– 59% of journalists who work for news sources with right-leaning audiences and 56% of those who work for news sources with left-leaning audiences are extremely or very concerned about press freedoms.Discover how journalists perceive the future of the news industry ...

WE Communications and the USC Annenberg Center for Public Relations examined how communications leaders are responding to the recent uptick of interest in AI. The study specifically measured practitioners’ levels of excitement and concern.A survey of roughly 400 communications leaders was conducted in April 2023.Key findings include:— 80% of respondents said AI will be extremely or very important to the future of PR work.— 16% of respondents said they were extremely knowledgeable about the applications of AI in communications.—– 59% of respondents said they already have or are looking for ways to incorporate ChatGPT into their work.— 23% of respondents said their organizations are changing the way they work due to new AI tools.—– 88% of respondents said AI will increase the efficiency of their work.—– 72% or respondents said it will reduce workloads.— 25% of respondents think that AI will negatively impact creativity.— 87% of respondents said the ability to write good AI prompts will become a more important skill to have.—– Other important skills included having knowledge on human-computer interaction (82%), strategic thinking (79%), and data analytics experience (75%).Discover what communications leaders are saying about AI ...

This summary is provided by the IPR Digital Media Research CenterMorning Consult explored Americans’ trust in artificial intelligence (AI) companies and support of AI being regulated by the government.A survey of 2,212 U.S. adults was conducted from April 19-22, 2023.Key findings include:— 43% of all respondents said AI companies should be “more regulated” by the government.—– 49% of Democrats said the same, compared to 44% of Republicans.— 36% of Americans overall said they have a “favorable” view of AI companies.—– Millennials had the most favorable views of AI companies (48%), followed by Gen Xers (34%), and Gen Zers (32%).—– Baby Boomers had the least favorable views of AI companies (26%). — While nearly equal shares of adults trust (38%) or distrust (36%) AI companies, major technology firms such as Microsoft and Google fare much better with 52% of respondents saying they trust these firms.—– Democrats (47%) were more likely than Republicans (32%) to say they trust AI companies to “do what is right.” Learn more about Americans’ thoughts on AI companies and regulation ...

This blog is provided by the IPR Behavioral Insights Research CenterWe’ve started to get glimpses into what AI means for the comms and PR professions, and not all the news is good…As AI has burst onto the scene, no one has missed the fact that it will have huge ramifications — not only in our work lives, but for society at large. This is especially true in terms of privacy, regulation, and information access — not to mention the very definitions of originality, authenticity, and art. There is talk of a “Cambrian explosion” in terms of AI’s impact on our world, due to its exponential enablement of new technology and generative outputs. But what specifically does it mean for professional communicators?AI’s newer generative language models, such as ChatGPT, are transforming the business landscape in ways that have huge knock-on effects for the profession. The push of a button is all it takes to create original content, mimic narrative styles, paraphrase texts, and in some cases, design compelling rhetoric that can sway and motivate. It’s patently clear that this is going to be a game changer and relieve at least some of the more tedious tasks in comms. Not to mention the fact that it’s really fun to use. Why, then, does it make us feel so uneasy?In my book, published last year (a lifetime ago in AI terms), I emphasized that generative AI poses a significant threat to the communication and PR professions. In terms of day-to-day content production — such as press releases, corporate announcements, and basic journalism — ChatGPT and its variants can produce convincing and accurate copy in a fraction of the time it takes a human being. This is especially threatening to entry-level and junior communications roles. But the fact is that this type of technological encroachment as inevitable as taxes and death. Just as robotic chefs and robotic surgeons and AI-powered legal contracts will soon become commonplace, many communication tasks will be outsourced to machines. This will undoubtedly create crises for employment and financial security — and it will also create crises around the purpose and meaning of apprenticeships and on-the-job learning — not just for comms, but for all impacted professions.The good news is that communicators have an ace in their pocket. We are still a long way from surrendering organizational and leadership communication to a machine, at least for the time being. This is for two different reasons:1.) There is a dark side to these technologies Even in the earliest days of GPT-2 and GPT-3, researchers found that generative AI excels at generating disinformation — a phenomenon that Politico’s AI reporter Melissa Heikkilä cleverly described as “filling the swamp.” Generative AI is alarmingly effective at crafting slick-sounding messages — from QAnon conspiracy theories and climate change denial to extremist narratives and radical ideologies.With this kind of gloomy research, however, we can glean many useful insights. Because AI is so effective at “filling the swamp,” it means that the structure of disinformation itself must be formulaic or algorithmic. IPR published a valuable primer on how to detect disinformation, and these clues, along with academic research into AI, may help us learn how to reverse engineer it.2.) Generative AI’s output is decontextualizedChatGPT is a generative technology, but that doesn’t mean that the content it generates is meaningful or even relevant. In Alan Turing’s imitation game, a series of questions can determine if one is interacting with a human or a machine, but the results of the game depend not only on the ability to give correct answers, but on how closely the answers resemble those that an actual human would give. In other words, the machine eventually reveals itself. For the time being at least, for any issue of real consequence, ChatGPT is an imitation and not the real McCoy.For these reasons, I believe that generative AI presents an opportunity for the communication profession to grow, even as it increasingly threatens many livelihoods. It may, in fact, be because of the threat that it forces change. It does this by providing an impetus to up our game and focus our time and energy on how to develop more perceptive, sincere, thoughtful, and yes, human communication — that can only be done by people. This is easier said than done, but it will mark the next era of the profession. And provide an even greater reason for corporate communicators to have a seat at the table in the organizations they serve.ReferencesBuchanan, B., Lohn, A., Musser, M., & Sedova, K. (2021, May). Truth, lies, and automation: How language models could change disinformation. Center for Security and Emerging Technology. https://cset.georgetown.edu/public ation/truth-lies-and-automation/McGuffie, K., & Newhouse, A. (2020). The radicalization risks of GPT-3 and advanced neural language models. Center on Terrorism, Extremism, and Counterterrorism, Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterrey. https://www.middlebury.edu/institute/sites/www.middlebury.edu.institute/files/2020-09/gpt3-article.pdf Laura McHale is the Managing Director and Leadership Psychologist Expert at Conduit Consultants Limited. McHale is an expert in assessments, leadership, and team effectiveness. She is the author of Neuroscience for Organizational Communication. She currently serves on the IPR Behavioral Insights Research Center Board of Advisors. ...