Mediating role of Digital Ethics on the impact of Artificial Intelligence Usage and Public Relations Practices: evidence from Malaysia

The use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has led to great advancement in the field of Public Relations (PR); however, the organisations are still unsure about the ethical consequences of this new technology. This study aims to examine the effect of AI usage on PR practices by examining the mediating role of Digital Ethics. The study used a cross-sectional quantitative method. The data was collected through structured survey questionnaires from PR practitioners in a Malaysian setting. Mediation analysis was run using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and PROCESS macro-Model 4. The results showcased that AI usage has a significant impact on PR practices, while Digital Ethics further mediates the relationship, suggesting that AI, when employed ethically, assists in efficient PR practices. This work fills a critical gap in the literature regarding the role of Digital Ethics in the landscape of AI usage for performing PR activities. The study extends the Excellence Theory scholarship into an AI-driven ethical context. The findings offer a crucial incentive for organisations to introduce robust ethical guidelines into their AI-driven PR strategies. The study suggests that by being aware and readily employing Digital Ethical practices, PR practitioners can not only increase their productivity but also safeguard their organisations against the potential ethical threats posed by AI.

1 Introduction

The fourth Industrial Revolution, characterised using Artificial Intelligence (AI), Internet of Things (IoT), 3D printing, smart cities and homes, robotics, and various other mind-blowing technological advancements, has completely transformed the post-pandemic world (Ahmad et al., 2022; Bowen, 2024; Yedalla, 2025). AI has become a noteworthy addition to the Public Relations (PR) departments of organisations for decision making and relationship management (Yue et al., 2024; Karanja, 2025). Economies are investing billions to build new AI systems in a competitive market for their brand promotions (Bourne and Jackson, 2024). According to the 2024 PRWeek Global Comms Report, PR practitioners across the U.S., Europe, and Asia-Pacific region revealed a growing interest in generative AI, with 32% reported to actively use AI in their work, while a further 27% reported to consider adopting AI in their future work (Cision, 2024).

Consequently, the use of AI in the PR department can bring changes in the organisation’s ability to interact with the public (Mardhika, 2023). For instance, the time saved by using efficient AI can be utilised in more strategic ways to deal with the stakeholders (Gregory and Gupta, 2023). Besides, a wide range of AI-powered applications and systems are readily available to organisations and individuals (Ghani et al., 2022; Gonçalves et al., 2024) and are deployed in customer service as chatbots and virtual assistants to communicate and deal with customer queries (Angin and Mukhlisiana, 2024). Nowadays, AI is even leveraged for generating images for advertising, sentiment, and trend analysis, collecting browsers’ histories for recommendations, and creating generative promotional content (Ford et al., 2023; Bourne and Jackson, 2024; Yue et al., 2024).

Hence, the significant increase in the use of AI-generated tools has also led many researchers to speculate on the unfavourable outcomes of the technology on a company’s productivity (Ross and Maynard, 2021; Dong and van den Berg, 2025). According to the World Economic Forum (2025), about 80% of organisations are deploying AI in their business functions; however, the statistics about whether the industries know how to utilise these tools to their full potential are still unknown. Even though the advocates of AI state that it helps with efficiency, there are significant ethical threats that prevail. For instance, the pre-existing biases and surveillance may lead to the instillation of fear even within the employees of an organisation (Gonçalves et al., 2024). Similarly, Chan and Lo (2025) argues that AI-driven surveillance and predictive systems can threaten even the fundamental human rights such as privacy, fairness and autonomy, calling for practical solutions like privacy by design and transparency.

Furthermore, serious concerns like fake news, biased information, and unethical practices can fundamentally harm the goodwill and reputation of a company (Shahbazi and Bunker, 2024). In addition, AI can impact the privacy and security of people, causing great implications, as much remains unexplored in this context (Gonçalves et al., 2024). The possibility of these ethical ambiguities turning into a counteractive force against the benefits availed by these same technologies is quite high (Ariffin et al., 2023; Gonçalves et al., 2024). Subsequently, there is a lack of significant literature regarding the exploration of Digital Ethical issues with regard to the specific context of AI in various fields, particularly in the Public Relations domain (Meng et al., 2022; Hagelstein et al., 2024; Verma and Garg, 2024), which warrants the study.

In the context of Malaysia, the Artificial Intelligence Roadmap (AI-RMAP) 2021–2025, presented by MOSTI, makes it highly significant to study the possible ethical implications of AI. According to PwC Malaysia (2025), AI adoption can lead to 15% growth in GDP; however, its success does not solely rely on technical infrastructure but on responsible deployment of AI, publics, and organisational trust. If these factors are not taken into consideration, the growth can only be about 8% or even as low as 1%. Moreover, research reported that 61.9% of Malaysian PR practitioners claim to face ethical issues yearly (Macnamara et al., 2021). Thus, empirical research is required to investigate closely the ground-level evidence that showcases the real digital ethical landscape while employing AI in PR activities (Cusnir and Nicola, 2024; Dong and van den Berg, 2025). Utilising the Excellence Theory as a basis for best organisational practices, the study also aims to fill the theoretical gap with regards to the ethical principle of the theory and AI utilisation in PR practices (Wang et al., 2021; Jackson et al., 2022).

Based on the discussion, this study aims (1) to examine the effect of AI usage on PR practices, and (2) to test the mediating effect of Digital Ethics on the impact of AI usage and PR practices.

2 Literature review

2.1 Artificial Intelligence Usage and Public Relations Practices

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is defined by Kaplan and Haenlein (2019, p. 17) as “a system’s ability to correctly interpret external data, to learn from such data, and to use those learnings to achieve specific goals and tasks through flexible adaptation.” AI has quickly permeated the PR industry and is being actively used in several applications, including press monitoring, campaign management, content management, and press release generation (Yue et al., 2024). Volaric et al. (2024) highlighted how AI tools like generative content, predictive technologies, and automated messaging help in sentiment analysis, media monitoring, and running smooth campaigns to enhance relationship management through data-driven and personalised storytelling. Owing to analytical tools that provide precise insights into stakeholder preferences, employee performance, and customer behavior, managers can now make data-driven decisions rather than depending on subjective predictions (Mahmud et al., 2025). Kede (2025) emphasises that AI’s disruptive role in utilising tools like natural language models and real-time dashboards for crisis management has not only redefined operational functions of PR, but it also plays a revolutionary role in shifting the very structure of strategic PR. Delphi studies highlight how AI digitalisation of routine activities (Çataldaş and Özgen, 2023) has helped save time to focus on more crucial functions like stakeholder responsiveness and reputation management, rather than repetitive and menial communication tasks (Mahmud et al., 2025). Hence, the following hypothesis is presented:

H1. AI usage has a positive impact on PR practices among Malaysian companies.

2.2 Artificial Intelligence Usage and Digital Ethics

As the world gradually progressed into a hyperreal world of screens and technology, the specified field of ethics, namely Digital Ethics (Müller, 2022), has garnered the attention of researchers. The field encompasses a new array of ethical issues concerning digital technology like big data, privacy, security, AI integration, predictive algorithms, surveillance, etc. (Gonçalves et al., 2024). Similarly, Angin and Mukhlisiana (2024) emphasize the need for a robust ethical framework and guidelines when employing AI in PR strategies, because without these ethical protocols, AI can pose a threat to data privacy and stakeholder trust. Some researchers believe that the digital ethical dilemmas are merely a replication of the traditional ethical concerns. For instance, the issue of privacy in the online sphere is equivalent to the olden days of legal protection for the privacy of a letter (Müller, 2022). On the other hand, Bowen (2024) believes that the digital AI gives birth to a combination of complex issues that were previously not known to humankind. For instance, research conducted by Naz and Kashif (2025) on the use of predictive marketing practices shows that the utilization of AI in marketing can cause various ethical issues, such as privacy, bias, and controlling consumer behavior. Issues like privacy and data security arise because these AI tools are trained on a bulk of personal data that might infringe personal data privacy and security due to a lack of transparency (Gonçalves et al., 2024) Therefore, the following hypothesis is stipulated:

H2. AI usage has a positive effect on Digital Ethics among Malaysian companies.

2.3 Digital Ethics and Public Relations Practices

Ethics in PR include “values such as honesty, openness, loyalty, fair-mindedness, respect, integrity, and forthright communication” (Bowen, 2007, p. 1). It is vital to look at ethical behavior as one of the crucial PR functions (Neill et al., 2025). To uphold the fair two-way communication with the public, it is important for an organisation to maintain ethical conduct so as not to deceive the public in any possible way (Gonçalves, 2024). Similarly, Hou and Johnston (2024)proposed a framework that puts ethics based on empathy, accountability, and societal values as the central force for strong communication with the audience. Moreover, studies conducted in several nations demonstrate the ongoing moral dilemmas in digital PR strategies. For instance, researchers discovered that practitioners in Kenya, United States., New Zealand, Israel, Brazil, and Portugal were becoming more concerned about information control, authenticity, and truthfulness that may impact their PR functions (Toledano and Avidar, 2016; Sebastião et al., 2017; Karanja, 2025). Similarly, Hagelstein et al. (2021) concluded that the countries with underdeveloped ethical standards and guidelines about technological use tend to face more reputational risks, suggesting a strong digital ethical link to effective PR practices. Likewise, Chan and Lo (2025) highlighted that using predictive systems and AI surveillance are major reasons for privacy breaches; hence the inclusion of transparency, fairness, accountability and human oversight in the public relation practices can curb these ethical dilemmas. Hence, the following hypothesis is proposed:

H3. Digital Ethics has a positive effect on PR practices among Malaysian companies.

2.4 Mediating role of Digital Ethics on Artificial Intelligence Usage and Public Relations Practices

Use of big data and algorithms is identified as the second most crucial issue for PR communicators (Macnamara et al., 2021). Booyse and Scheepers (2024) conducted a study that identified ethical and discriminatory biases as one of the negative contributing factors in the adoption and utilisation of AI tools in PR. Likewise, Bowen (2024) explores the evolving field of PR and highlights the notion that well-defined and grounded ethical boundaries are crucial for AI technologies to achieve effective organisational goals. Similarly, Dong and van den Berg (2025) in their study reveal that confidence in AI-centred communication largely depends on ethical underpinnings, suggesting an influence of ethics on PR practitioners’ decision to use AI. Moreover, Gonçalves et al. (2024) state that Digital Ethics serves as a bridge that guides the technological advancements to align with the public’s and stakeholders’ interests and the company’s goodwill. Zhao et al. (2025) confirm that the integration of AI in PR functions is determined by ethical mediation, as AI-powered communication issues, for instance, misinformation, misuse of data, or algorithm failures, require ethical intervention for their prevention. Therefore, noting an interplay among variables, the following hypothesis is stipulated:

H4. Digital Ethics has a mediating effect between AI usage and PR practices among Malaysian companies.

2.5 Excellence theory

The significance of ethics and integrity in PR lies with the principles of excellent and effective communication, known as the Excellence Theory of PR, given by Grunig and Grunig in 1992 (El-Astal, 2005; Toledano and Avidar, 2016). Grunig and Grunig in 1992 charted the principles of effective PR that should be practiced by PR professionals if they want to excel in a company’s PR functions (Grunig and Repper, 2013). Grunig et al. (2002) in their work concluded that “Ethics and Integrity” should be added as one of the generic principles of excellent public relations (Bowen, 2007). Excellence Theory promotes communication based on mutual trust, understanding, and positive relationship cohering the interests of both organisation and its publics (Gonçalves, 2024). This mutual understanding can also be achieved by employing the two-way symmetrical model of PR because of the “inherently ethical” (Grunig and Repper, 2013).

The theory is still being employed in a vast array of PR research around the globe, especially in the context of Ethics and AI. For instance, observing PR competencies in the age of AI (Neill et al., 2025), constructing new frameworks for systematic challenges in Nigeria (Eyo, 2025), assessing adherence to codes of ethics in Lagos States (Oduenyi and Etumnu, 2025), AI and stakeholder engagements (Gilkerson and Swenson, 2025). However, there is a theoretical gap in Excellence Theory scholarship concerning the digitalisation of the PR practices concerning AI usage and Digital Ethics (Whittlestone et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2021; Jackson et al., 2022). Therefore, the study adopts Excellence theory as its theoretical framework, as it establishes a robust link between Ethics and PR, and it is crucial to study in the age of digitalisation.

2.6 Conceptual framework

Figure 1 showcases the conceptual framework of the study.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Conceptual framework.

3 Methodology

3.1 Research design

This study employed a quantitative, cross-sectional survey design to examine the relationships between AI usage, Digital Ethics, and PR practices. Quantitative approach has been applied in this study as it allows the statistical analysis in a structured and systematic way, making it simpler to identify the flow of relationships and patterns among the numerical data. Moreover, quantitative design seems the most appropriate for the study as similar studies on Digital Ethics opted out for quantitative research designs (Hagelstein et al., 2021; Macnamara et al., 2021) because it produces quantified data on a large scale, which increases the chances to attain reliable and unbiased data (Pilcher and Cortazzi, 2024).

3.2 Sampling procedure

A purposive sampling method was used to collect data. The population of this study was the public relations practitioners registered with the Institute of Public Relations Malaysia (IPRM). A list of registered organisations was obtained from the Institute of Public Relations Malaysia (IPRM) as a sampling frame. The list included the required details of all the Public Relations practitioners registered with the said Institute in Malaysia. The governmental database was authentic, up-to-date, and gave a clearer picture for the study to observe the ethical considerations of the professionals currently involved in the Public Relations profession.

Since the research focused on the organisational and practical implications of AI technology, the unit of analysis was organisations involved in public relations functions in Malaysia. Consequently, the study excludes those institutions that include the details of respondents who are registered with IPRM but are not practicing PR functions (e.g., lecturers, academicians, teachers, professors, etc.). Therefore, the study excluded universities, colleges and educational institutions from the obtained sample frame to maintain the reliability of the study. The total number of registered organisations under the Institute of Public Relations Malaysia was 438 as of 23 January 2024. After excluding 28 universities as the data obtained from them consisted of non-practitioners, the population was reduced to 410 organisations. The sample size was calculated according to these 410 organisations.

The sample size was calculated using the Krejcie and Morgan (1970) method. The Krejcie and Morgan (1970) method can be used for determining the sample size for categorical data for organisational research (Bin Ahmad and Halim, 2017). However, for more reliable and accurate results, Raosoft (2004) and G*Power (v3.1) were also utilised to confirm the sample size. According to the calculations by Raosoft (2004), the sample size for the population of 410 should be 199 with a confidence level of 95% and a margin of error being 5%. It validated the sample size given in the Krejcie and Morgan (1970) Sample Size Table for the same population. However, according to the size calculated using G*Power (v3.1), a minimum sample of 119 participants was required with a 95% confidence interval, effect size medium, and three predictors.

3.3 Measurements

A structured survey questionnaire method was used to collect data. Previous research on PR ethics conducted by El-Astal (2005), Hagelstein et al. (2021) and Macnamara et al. (2021) used the Likert-type interval scale for data collection. Hence, a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree) was adapted for data collection to verify validity. The instruments were adopted and adapted from the validated and reliable scales from previous literature ensuring relevance to Malaysian context.

AI Usage was measured using a 20-item scale of Marchewka and Kostiwa (2007) (e.g., My organisation finds its interactions with AI tools clear and understandable). The said instrument was based on the original instrument developed by Venkatesh et al. (2003). Digital Ethical consideration was measured by a 13-item scale (e.g., My organisation finds it challenging to program AI to fully capture the authentic voices and nuances required for certain organizational tasks) used by Toledano and Avidar (2016), which was further adopted by Sebastião et al. (2017). An 8-item PR practices scale (e.g., The purpose of public relations is to develop mutual understanding between the management of the organisation and its public). by Ahmad (2011) was adopted for measuring the PR practices. To maintain clarity and brevity, only sample items are reported here. The full list of items is available from the authors upon request (see Table 1).

Table 1

Table 1. Summary of the scales.

3.4 Data collection

This research obtained ethical approval under the code of EA0792024 by the Research Ethics Committee at Multimedia University, Malaysia. The research followed all necessary ethical guidelines for data collection. Informed consent was obtained from the participants before the data collection. The research form began with a brief about the purpose of the study, voluntary willingness to participate, confidentiality, and anonymity of their responses.

The data was collected via Google Form, which was sent to the participants via email through the months of December 2024–April 2025. The emails were then sent to the senior communication officers or PR practitioners from each organisation to capture the ground-level practices in the field of PR. Follow-up emails were sent at three intervals over the duration of the data collection. Moreover, phone calls were made to expedite the whole collection process. The research instrument consisted of 4 parts: the demographics, and three sections comprised of the instruments for research variables, respectively.

The study managed to collect 152 responses because of the rigorous data collection process yielding a 75.62% response rate, which was sufficient according to G*Power (v3.1) calculations of a 119-sample size. A new sample size was also calculated using Yamane’s (1967) formula Louangrath and Sutanapong (2019) as shown in Equation 1, to carry out a robust data collection process, suggesting that a minimum of 30 samples may be deemed enough for any social science research (Louangrath and Sutanapong, 2019). With a 95% confidence level (p = 0.05), the calculated value for the sample size was N = 199, 199(1 + 199*0.05*0.05) = 133. The collected responses are 152, which is higher than the revised calculated sample size, making the data collection process valid for analysis.

$\begin{array}{ll}N=\frac{N}{1+N\ast \left(e^2\right)}& (1)\end{array}$

4 Results

4.1 Preliminary data analysis

Several preliminary analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics 29.0.2 to verify data suitability and quality for hypothesis testing. The reliability and internal consistency of the data was accessed using Cronbach’s Alpha (Cheung et al., 2024), The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) measure and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity (Mahmoudzadeh et al., 2023) were applied to evaluate the validity of the constructs for factor analysis. In addition, the normality of the data distributions was assessed through skewness and kurtosis tests (Gravetter and Wallnau, 2011). These tests prove to be essential to ensure that the dataset is suitable for further statistical analysis.

4.2 Demographics

The survey included 152 respondents in total. Table 2 shows that respondents were mostly aged between 30 and 39 years (36.8%), followed by those aged 40–49 years (28.3%), 20–29 years (27%), and 50–60 years (7.9%). The analysis depicts that among the respondents, 57.2% were male and 42.8% were female. In terms of educational background, 44.1% of respondents had a Bachelor’s degree, 36.2% had a Master’s degree, 16.4% had earned a diploma/STPM, and 3.3% had a Ph.D. In addition, 31.6% of the participants had 6–10 years of experience, while 26.3% had 16 and 20 years, 20.4% had 11–15 years, 12.5% had over 21 years, and 9.2% had 1–5 years of experience.

Table 2

Table 2. Demographic data of the respondents (N = 152).

4.3 Reliability test

Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficients were calculated to evaluate the internal consistency of the scales. As shown in Table 3, the Artificial Intelligence Usage (AIU) scale showed a Cronbach’s Alpha score of 0.932, depicting high reliability. Digital Ethics (DE) scale and Public Relations Practice (PRP) scale yielded Cronbach’s Alpha values of 0.842 and 0.763. According to Cheung et al. (2024), Cronbach’s Alpha values above 0.70 are considered reliable for statistical analysis. Hence, all variables were verified for reliability.

Table 3

Table 3. Reliability test results.

4.4 Construct validity

Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) and Bartlett’s Test were performed to determine to sampling adequacy and suitability of the data. All variables produced significant results, deeming it justifiable to continue with analysis, as a KMO value of 0.7 or above is considered acceptable for analysis (Mahmoudzadeh et al., 2023). Table 4 showcases the KMO value for AI usage is 0.883, which is well above the recommended minimum of 0.60 (Kaiser, 1974). Moreover, Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity demonstrated a chi-square of 4484.920, and proves to be significant (p < 0.001). The results suggest sufficient common variances for all the items. In addition, the finding states the KMO value for Digital Ethics is 0.781. The Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity is also statistically significant (p < 0.001), with a chi-square value of 1717.035 showcasing the suitability of the construct for analysis. The KMO value for the PR Practice scale is 0.763, indicating a significant sample adequacy. The results of Bartlett’s test are significant (p < 0.001), suggesting the data to be eligible for calculations.

Table 4

Table 4. KMO & Bartlett’s test.

4.5 Construct normality

A descriptive statistic, including skewness and kurtosis, was computed to evaluate the normality of the constructs. As shown in Table 5, skewness values for all variables fell within the range of −0.505 to 0.476, while kurtosis values ranged from 0.158 to 0.958. According to Gravetter and Wallnau (2011), skewness and kurtosis values that fall within the range of ±2 are considered acceptable. Hence, the data were considered suitable for parametric analyses and indicated no serious deviations from normality.

Table 5

Table 5. Descriptive statistics and normality test.

4.6 Inferential analysis

IBM SPSS Statistics 29.0.2 was utilised for examining the relationship between key variables and hypothesis testing. PROCESS macro (Model 4) was used to examine the strength and direction of relationships among the three main constructs: Artificial Intelligence Usage (AIU), Digital Ethics (DE), and Public Relations Practices (PRP). To test H1, H2, H3, and H4 a mediation analysis using PROCESS macro (Model 4) with 5,000 bootstrap samples was performed to assess the predictive effect of AIU on DE then DE on PRP and lastly direct effect of AI on PRP and indirect effects of AI on PRP considering DE as a mediator. The results of these inferential analyses are reported below in Table 5.

4.6.1 Mediation analysis using PROCESS macro

A mediation analysis was conducted using PROCESS macro-Model 4 (Hayes, 2022) and 5,000 bootstrap samples to investigate the mediating role of Digital Ethics in the relationship between AI usage and PR practices (see Figure 2).

Figure 2

Figure 2. Mediation model.

Table 6 indicates the results of hypothesis testing showing that AI Usage has a substantial direct effect on PR practices (β = 0.198, SE = 0.023, t = 8.470, p < 0.001). Moreover, AI Usage significantly impacts Digital Ethics (β = 0.277, SE = 0.027, t = 10.410, p < 0.001), sustaining hypothesis 2. Furthermore, the analysis also depicts a significant relationship between Digital Ethics and PR practices (β = 0.314, SE = 0.055, t = 5.740, p < 0.001). In addition, the results further show the significant indirect effect of AI usage on PR practices, after accounting for the mediating effect of Digital Ethics [β = 0.087, BootSE = 0.017, 95% CI (0.049, 0.116)]. These results validate Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4, confirming that Digital Ethics mediates the relationship between AI Usage and PR practices among companies in Malaysia.

Table 6

Table 6. Hypothesis testing.

5 Discussion

The results confirm that AI usage has a substantial impact on PR practices, with Digital Ethics acting as a significant mediating factor. The findings provide crucial theoretical and practical insights into the progressing arena of AI-driven communication scenarios.

Hypothesis 1 significantly proves a relationship between AI usage and PR practices and aligns with the past research that acknowledged the integration of AI in PR, such as chatbots, content creation tools, and sentiment analysis software. This leads to better PR practices in terms of efficiency, stakeholder engagement, and influential campaigns (Çataldaş and Özgen, 2023; Angin and Mukhlisiana, 2024; Bourne and Jackson, 2024). Kede (2025) confirms that AI not only helps in managing routine tasks, but it has also entirely redesigned the way the PR department functions. The initial approach towards the relationship was cautious, given the divide in literature on observing ethical concerns that were reported by PR practitioners while employing AI. However, the findings in the Malaysian context showcase that AI plays a facilitating role, rather than a diminishing role, in a company’s PR operations.

Although much of the existing literature has addressed the ethical concerns caused by using AI, particularly revolving around algorithm bias, data privacy violations, surveillance, and lack of transparency (Dwivedi et al., 2023; Gonçalves et al., 2024). The results of hypothesis 2 paint a contrasting picture within the Malaysian context. The significant positive relationship between AI usage and Digital Ethics stipulates that organisations are not only benefiting from the said technologies in terms of efficiency, but they are also causing an increase in ethical considerations simultaneously. A longitudinal study conducted by Bowen (2024) on AI ethics showcases the increase in ethical awareness in the post-pandemic world, particularly in the year 2023. Likewise, Cusnir and Nicola (2024) in their study reported that PR professionals in Romania consider using AI as ethical, portraying the positive relationship between the two variables, which aligns with the findings of this study. Malaysian companies may be ethically well informed due to various contextual factors like cultural norms, organisational structures, or growing regulatory frameworks that promote accountability, transparency, or regulatory responsibility.

Hypothesis 3 postulates a positive and significant relationship between Digital Ethics and PR practices, stating that organisations adopting regulated digital ethical practices will positively impact the PR activities. Furthermore, this relationship aligns with the core tenet of the Excellence Theory of Public Relations, which states that ethical, two-way symmetrical communication leads to more effective PR (Gonçalves, 2024). While the original theory focuses on traditional ethics, the present study extends its relevance to the digital world, observing that ethical decision-making in AI—AI-integrated settings also boosts PR outcomes. The findings suggest that digital ethical behavior is at the core goal for maintaining credibility, trust, and stakeholder engagement (Bowen, 2024). Zhao et al. (2025) developed a nexus between Digital Ethics in PR by reporting that organisational management is influenced by the ethical threats raised by AI, especially during a crisis. The findings align with past research by predicting that societal, economic, and ethical implications do influence PR while using AI, which go beyond the scope of efficiency and automation (Panda et al., 2019; Karanja, 2025), suggesting a link between digital ethical practices and PR practices.

Further strengthening this stance, hypothesis 4 confirms the significant mediating effect of Digital Ethics between AI usage and PR practices. While these technologies have significantly added to the ethical tensions of the organisations by discriminatory exclusion (Mihale-Wilson et al., 2021), data breach, and cyberattacks (Herden et al., 2021), hypothesis 4 gives a contrasting result stating that when organizations make digital decisions based on ethical and moral grounds, they enhance their PR outcomes, even though they are making use of AI. Oduenyi and Etumnu (2025) reported that upholding ethical norms is crucial for PR engagement, especially in the digital world. Similarly, PR practitioners can channel credibility and effectiveness in their communication with stakeholders, leading to favorable outcomes and stronger relationships, if they abide by the ethical standards of honesty, transparency, and fairness (Hou and Johnston, 2024; Boynton, 2025). Perhaps PR practitioners are increasing the ethical responsibility of AI by limiting its undesirable application and expanding its use in a constructive manner (Bowen, 2024). Malaysia ranks high in relying on professional organisations for ethical guidance (Macnamara et al., 2021), which might be one of the factors for the positive relationship between the variables. The findings can further be interpreted in the light of human rights concerns raised in recent AI ethics scholarship that posits that principles of privacy, transparency and fairness need to be practices to safeguard public trust (Chan and Lo, 2025). As a result, the study contributes a fresh insight into the discourse surrounding AI technologies and Digital Ethics in the realm of public relations.

6 Conclusion

The study examines the relationship between AI Usage, Digital Ethics, and PR Practices among companies in Malaysia. The findings underscore the mediating role of Digital Ethics in shaping PR Practices in today’s world. Digital Ethics helps to ensure that technological integration aligns with effective and excellent communication practices, from enhancing the way professionals do their daily tasks to managing large-scale media campaigns and extensive PR projects. The significance of Digital Ethics as a bridge between technology, specifically AI, and PR practices seems promising to eliminate the potential bias, misinformation, lack of transparency, anonymity, and other associated ethical issues.

6.1 Practical implications

Practical significance for PR professionals would be to be fully acquainted with the ethical downside of this technology to maximize their outputs. It is necessary to cultivate ethical awareness among PR professionals to safeguard the company’s reputation and the smooth running of the business. Organisations can introduce regular training and workshops circling around the ethical use of AI that accommodate practitioners with the latest and morally responsible ways to incorporate AI into their work. Organisations and policymakers should chart out refined and up-to-date digital ethical codes of conduct to facilitate practitioners in all AI-related scenarios. Aligned with Malaysia Artificial Intelligence Roadmap 2021–2025, which emphasizes progressive and responsible AI utilisation, Digital Ethics, and innovation, the study gives deeper insight into Malaysian AI usage and ethical landscape in the PR industry.

6.2 Academic implications

This interdisciplinary study further contributes to the academic discourse and theoretical advancements in the field of Digital PR and Digital PR Ethics. Building on the concept of Excellence Theory by Grunig and Grunig (1992), the study adds the constituent of AI usage to the existing knowledge, which gives a new facet to the theory. It opens new avenues to construct on the foundations of Excellence and add new dimensions to the existing discourse of PR scholarship. As organisations readily employ AI in their communication activities, digital ethical practices are crucial to preserve the two-way symmetrical communication. Ultimately, the study provides a relevant perspective for both scholars and practitioners aiming to understand and integrate responsible and ethical AI practices into their Public Relations activities.

6.3 Limitations and future research

Despite the pivotal contribution of the study in the field of PR, the study has some limitations. The study employs a cross-sectional survey design, which limits the ability to observe changes over time. Even though the study employed several procedures to mitigate the potential common method bias including assuring respondents of anonymity, separating items measuring different variables in the questionnaire, and reverse-coding to reduce patterned responses, yet a risk for bias always exists since the data was collected in a single time and source. There is a need for qualitative and longitudinal studies in this arena that gather detailed insights into everyday moral decision-making processes to pinpoint how digital ethical standards can be elevated and can yield causality as opposed to cross-sectional studies. Besides, the study was limited to the organisations registered with IPRM in Malaysia. Hence, the study can be expanded on the basis of contextual factors of a particular nation, such as pre-existing norms of truthfulness, legal accountability regulation, and stakeholder expectations, to delve deeper into the culturally driven motivations, while employing AI in their PR jobs. Comparative research can be done to explore the differences in digital ethical practices and the factors that influence them in various countries.

Additionally, the administered data collection method of collecting self-reporting responses may be subject to social desirability bias or subjective interpretations. The research can further be extended to other communication fields (e.g., journalism and advertising) and the field of management to explore the usage of AI with Digital Ethics. The study further suggests the incorporation of other variables that can influence the digital ethical considerations. For instance, legal regulations can be studied based on perceived adequacy of AI regulations, compliance with licensing requirements, or awareness of AI-related privacy laws (Plekhova et al., 2022). Similarly, sustainable communication focusing on predictive analytics usage, resource optimization (Mayo, 2024) can be studied in combination with ethical awareness. The study can be broadened by exploring how AI-driven and ethical PR practices align with the organisation’s commitment to the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (Geysi, 2025). The future research can incorporate the impact of AI-driven practices on human rights and democratic values to evaluate the outcomes (Chan and Lo, 2025) Ultimately, the study suggests that research should be carried out using other postmodern theories, like critical theory, to fully capture the nuanced world of AI.

Data availability statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics statement

This research obtained ethical approval under the code of EA0792024 by the Research Ethics Committee at Multimedia University, Malaysia. The research followed all necessary ethical guidelines for data collection. Informed consent was obtained from the participants before the data collection. The research form began with a brief about the purpose of the study, voluntary willingness to participate, confidentiality, and anonymity of their responses.

Author contributions

UK: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft. MA: Conceptualization, Data curation, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing. TC: Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review & editing. MP: Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing. SS: Methodology, Resources, Validation, Visualization, Writing – review & editing.

Funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research and/or publication of this article.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Generative AI statement

The authors declare that no Gen AI was used in the creation of this manuscript.

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

Ahmad, M. (2011). Public relations practice: A study on public relations excellence and practice in organisations listed on Busra Malaysia. Malaysia: University Sains.

Google Scholar

Ahmad, M. F., Husin, N. A. A., Ahmad, A. N. A., Abdullah, H., Wei, C. S., and Nawi, M. N. M. (2022). Digital transformation: an exploring barriers and challenges practice of artificial intelligence in manufacturing firms in Malaysia. J. Adv. Res. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 29, 110–117. doi: 10.37934/araset.29.1.110117

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Angin, T. G. P., and Mukhlisiana, L. (2024). The use of AI in digital transformation ethics and public relations strategies. J. Indones. Sos. Teknol. 5, 4948–4962. doi: 10.59141/JIST.V5I11.7044

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ariffin, A. S., Maavak, M., Dolah, R., and Muhtazaruddin, M. N. (2023). Formulation of AI governance and ethics framework to support the implementation of responsible AI for Malaysia. Res Mil. 13, 2491–2516.

Google Scholar

Bin Ahmad, H., and Halim, H. (2017). Determining sample size for research activities: the case of organizational research. Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348444939 (Accessed July 8, 2025)

Google Scholar

Booyse, D., and Scheepers, C. B. (2024). Barriers to adopting automated organisational decision-making through the use of artificial intelligence. Manag. Res. Rev. 47, 64–85. doi: 10.1108/MRR-09-2021-0701

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Bourne, C. D., and Jackson, M. (2024). AI ethics are not enough: public relations, social justice and artificial intelligence. The Sage handbook of promotional culture and society. Available online at: https://books.google.com.my/books?hl=en&lr=&id=egAVEQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA59&dq=Bourne,+C.+D.,+%26+Jackson,+M.+(2024).+AI+ethics+are+not+enough:+Public+relations,+social+justice+and+artificial+intelligence.+The+Sage+Handbook+of+Promotional+Culture+and+Society,+59.&ots=Mz3cl6POYE&sig=oGWfNhXfwSDZt-Fhx913v6p06Ns&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false (accessed July 8, 2025)

Google Scholar

Bowen, S. A. (2007). Ethics and public relations. Inst. Public Relat. Available online at: https://instituteforpr.org/ethics-and-public-relations/ (accessed July 8, 2025)

Google Scholar

Bowen, S. A. (2024). “If it can be done, it will be done:” AI ethical standards and a dual role for public relations. Public Relat. Rev. 50:102513. doi: 10.1016/J.PUBREV.2024.102513

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Boynton, L. (2025). “Public relations industry standards and ethics” in Public relations writing: essential tools for effective storytelling. Ed. V, Fields (SAGE Publications), 17–35.

Google Scholar

Çataldaş, İ., and Özgen, E. (2023). Artificial intelligence in digıtal public relations: a Delphi study. Etkileşim 12, 84–103. doi: 10.32739/etkilesim.2023.6.12.215

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Chan, H. W. H., and Lo, N. P. K. (2025). A study on human rights impact with the advancement of artificial intelligence. J. Posthumanism 5, 1114–1153. doi: 10.63332/JOPH.V5I2.490

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cheung, G. W., Cooper-Thomas, H. D., Lau, R. S., and Wang, L. C. (2024). Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: a review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pac. J. Manag. 41, 745–783. doi: 10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Cision (2024). 2024 global COMMS report: elevating & evolving|Cision. Available online at: https://www.cision.com/resources/guides-and-reports/2024-global-comms-report/ (accessed July 8, 2025)

Google Scholar

Cusnir, C., and Nicola, A. (2024). Using generative artificial intelligence tools in public relations: ethical concerns and the impact on the profession in the Romanian context. Commun. Soc. 37, 309–323. doi: 10.15581/+003.37.4.309-323

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dong, C., and van den Berg, M. (2025). Revisiting PR professionalism and ethics in the generative AI era through PR practitioners’ insights. Public Relat. Rev. 51:102582. doi: 10.1016/J.PUBREV.2025.102582

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Dwivedi, Y. K., Kshetri, N., Hughes, L., Slade, E. L., Jeyaraj, A., Kumar Kar, A., et al. (2023). “So what if ChatGPT wrote it?” multidisciplinary perspectives on opportunities, challenges and implications of generative conversational AI for research, practice and policy. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 71:102642. doi: 10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2023.102642

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Economic Forum. (2025) The year companies prepare to disrupt how work gets done | World Economic Forum. Avilable online at: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/01/ai-2025-workplace/ (Accessed October 9, 2025)

Google Scholar

El-Astal, M. A. (2005). Culture influence on educational public relations officers’ ethical judgments: a cross-national study. Public Relat. Rev. 31, 362–375. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.05.019

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Eyo, N. A. (2025). Re-conceptualizing Public Relations Practices in Nigeria: a framework to address systemic challenges. J. Commun. Public Relat. 4, 76–101. doi: 10.37535/105004120255

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ford, J., Jain, V., Wadhwani, K., and Gupta, D. G. (2023). AI advertising: an overview and guidelines. J. Bus. Res. 166:114124. doi: 10.1016/J.JBUSRES.2023.114124

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Geysi, N. (2025). Empowering public relations for sustainability: examining the landscape in Turkey. Corp. Commun. 30, 335–354. doi: 10.1108/CCIJ-12-2023-0192

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Ghani, E. K., Ariffin, N., and Sukmadilaga, C. (2022). Factors influencing artificial intelligence adoption in publicly listed manufacturing companies: a technology, organisation, and environment approach. Int. J. Appl. Econ. Finance Account. 14, 108–117. doi: 10.33094/ijaefa.v14i2.667

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gilkerson, N., and Swenson, R. (2025). Artificial intelligence and stakeholder engagement in public relations: Industry promises, potential pitfalls and a proposed framework for a path forward. Eds. Luttrell, R., and Wallace, A. A.. Public relations and the rise of AI, New York, NY: Taylor and Francis. 53–76. doi: 10.4324/9781032671482-6

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gonçalves, G. (2024). Ethical issues in the contemporary practice of public relations. Eds. E, Oliveira, and G, Gonçalves. Ethics and society: Challenges in organisational & public communication, Covilhã, Portugal: LabCom Comunicação & Artes. 67–80. doi: 10.25768/9229-21-1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gonçalves, G., Oliveira, E., and Bowen, S. A. (2024). Navigating the ethical landscape: organizational dynamics, engagement, authenticity, and societal impact. Estud. Comun. 1, 3–9. doi: 10.54499/UIDB/00661/2020

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Gravetter, F. J., and Wallnau, L. B. (2011). Essentials of statistics for the behavioral sciences. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.

Google Scholar

Gregory, J. M., and Gupta, S. K. (2023). Opportunities for generative artificial intelligence to accelerate deployment of human-supervised autonomous robots. Proc. AAAI Symp. Ser. 2, 177–181. doi: 10.1609/AAAISS.V2I1.27667

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Grunig, J. E., and Grunig, L. A. (1992). Models of public relations and communication. In Excellence in Public Relations and Communication Management (pp. 285–325). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. doi: 10.4324/9780203812303

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Grunig, L. A., Grunig, J. E., and Dozier, D. M. (2002). Excellent public relations and effective organizations: A study of communication management in three countries. In Excellent Public Relations and Effective Organizations: A Study of Communication Management in Three Countries. Taylor and Francis. doi: 10.4324/9781410606617

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Grunig, J. E., and Repper, F. C. (2013). “Strategic management, publics, and issues” in Excellence in public relations and communication management. New York, NY: Routledge. 117–157.

Google Scholar

Hagelstein, J., Charlotte Volk, S., Zerfass, A., Silveira Athaydes, A., Macnamara, J., Meng, J., et al. (2024). Ethical challenges of digital communication: a comparative study of public relations practitioners in 52 countries. Int. J. Commun. 18,:22. Available online at: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/20636 (accessed July 8, 2025)

Google Scholar

Hagelstein, J., Einwiller, S., and Zerfass, A. (2021). The ethical dimension of public relations in Europe: digital channels, moral challenges, resources, and training. Public Relat. Rev. 47:102063. doi: 10.1016/J.PUBREV.2021.102063

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hayes, A. F. (2022). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis : a regression-based approach. The Guilford Press. Avilable online at: https://books.google.com/books/about/Introduction_to_Mediation_Moderation_and.html?id=-a3BzgEACAAJ

Google Scholar

Herden, C. J., Alliu, E., Cakici, A., Cormier, T., Deguelle, C., Gambhir, S., et al. (2021). “Corporate digital responsibility” new corporate responsibilities in the digital age. Sustain. Manag. Forum 29, 13–29. doi: 10.1007/s00550-020-00509-x

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Hou, J. Z., and Johnston, J. (2024). Putting ethics of care into public relations: toward a multi-level agency model. Public Relat. Rev. 50:102495. doi: 10.1016/J.PUBREV.2024.102495

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Jackson, M., Chorazy, E., Sison, M. D., and Wise, D. (2022). Public relations ethics in the 21st century: a state-of-the-field review. J. Commun. Manag. 26, 294–314. doi: 10.1108/JCOM-12-2020-0164/FULL/PDF

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kaiser, H. F. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika, 39, 31–36. doi: 10.1007/BF02291575

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Kaplan, A., and Haenlein, M. (2019). Siri, Siri, in my hand: who’s the fairest in the land? On the interpretations, illustrations, and implications of artificial intelligence. Bus. Horiz. 62, 15–25. doi: 10.1016/J.BUSHOR.2018.08.004

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Karanja, J. M. (2025). “Beyond awareness: exploring AI’S impact on Kenyan PR adoption, efficiency, and ethics,” in Artificial intelligence and human perception: media discourse and public opinion, 129–143. Available online at: https://iris.unica.it/retrieve/19ac4d98-3cb6-40e9-a56c-5d6ee5ffc637/Lupano-Orr%C3%B9_stampa02.pdf#page=129 (accessed July 8, 2025).

Google Scholar

Kede, A. (2025). How AI-based media monitoring tools re-examined the field of public relations. Soc. Commun. J. 2, 140–155. Available online at: https://lonsuit.unismuhluwuk.ac.id/societo/article/view/390 (accessed October 10, 2025)

Google Scholar

Krejcie, R. V., and Morgan, D. W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607–610. doi: 10.1177/001316447003000308

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Louangrath, P. I., and Sutanapong, C. (2019). Minimum sample size calculation using cumulative distribution function. Int. J. Res. Method. Soc. Sci. 5, 100–113. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.2667494

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Macnamara, J., Lwin, M. O., Flora Hung-Baesecke, C.-J., and Zerfass, A. (2021). Asia-Pacific communication monitor 2020/21. Strategic issues, competency development, ethical challenges and gender equality in the communication profession. Results of a survey in 15 countries and territories. Brussels: Hong Kong.

Google Scholar

Mahmoudzadeh, T., Ghaderi, F., Jafarabadi, M. A., Sepehri, B., and Adigozali, H. (2023). Validity and reliability of the Persian version of the comprehensive constipation questionnaire: a cross-sectional study. J. Mod. Rehabil. 17, 181–187. doi: 10.18502/JMR.V17I2.12416

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mahmud, M. K., Sultana, T., and Rashid, H. (2025). Artificial intelligence and public relations synergy. Soc. Sustain. 7, 1–9. doi: 10.38157/SS.V7I1.653

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Marchewka, J. T., and Kostiwa, K. (2007). An application of the UTAUT model for understanding student perceptions using course management software. Commun. IIMA 7:10. doi: 10.58729/1941-6687.1038

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mardhika, H. (2023). How the introduction of AI (media monitoring) tools affects the field of public relations. J. Manaj. Bisnis 10, 555–569. doi: 10.33096/jmb.v10i2.624

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mayo, T. A. (2024). The role of artificial intelligence in sustainable communication: predictive analytics in environmental campaigns. J. Law Fut. Sec. 1, 42–52. Available online at: https://www.researchcorridor.org/index.php/jj/article/view/167 (accessed July 8, 2025)

Google Scholar

Meng, J., Kim, S., and Reber, B. (2022). Ethical challenges in an evolving digital communication era: coping resources and ethics trainings in corporate communications. Corp. Commun. 27, 581–594. doi: 10.1108/CCIJ-11-2021-0128/FULL/PDF

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Mihale-Wilson, C. A., Zibuschka, J., Valerie Carl, K., Hinz, O., and Valerie, K. (2021). Corporate digital responsibility-extended conceptualization and empirical assessment. ECIS 80, 1–16. Available online at: https://aisel.aisnet.org/ecis2021_rp/80 (Accessed October 10, 2025)

Google Scholar

Müller, V. C. (2022). The history of digital ethics. Ed. C, Véliz. The Oxford handbook of digital ethics. Oxford, United Kingdom: (Oxford University Press), 3–19. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198857815.013.1

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Naz, H., and Kashif, M. (2025). Artificial intelligence and predictive marketing: an ethical framework from managers’ perspective. Spanish J. Mark. ESIC 29, 22–45. doi: 10.1108/SJME-06-2023-0154/FULL/PDF

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Neill, M. S., Combs, L., Roker, R., Drewry, E., Hood, L., Vaughan, M., et al. (2025). 2024 practice analysis: a comparison of expectations vs actual performance of essential competencies in public relations. Corp. Commun. 30, 108–123. doi: 10.1108/CCIJ-04-2024-0066/FULL/PDF

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Oduenyi, C. C., and Etumnu, E. W. (2025). Assessment of the adherence to public relations code of ethics by practitioners in Lagos state. J. Commun. Public Relat. 4, 170–186. doi: 10.37535/1050041202510

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Panda, G., Upadhyay, A. K., and Khandelwal, K. (2019). Artificial intelligence: a strategic disruption in public relations. J. Creat. Commun. 14, 196–213. doi: 10.1177/0973258619866585

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Pilcher, N., and Cortazzi, M. (2024). “Qualitative” and “quantitative” methods and approaches across subject fields: implications for research values, assumptions, and practices. Qual. Quant. 58, 2357–2387. doi: 10.1007/S11135-023-01734-4

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Plekhova, I. O., Ludushkina, E. N., Savkina, M. A., Garanina, A. A., Aldabaeva, M. S., and Pertseva, L. N. (2022). Legal regulation of public relations connected with the development and application of artificial intelligence. Int. J. Ecosyst. Ecol. Sci. 12:504. doi: 10.31407/IJEES12.463

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

PwC Malaysia (2025). PwC: AI can potentially boost global GDP by up to 15 percentage points by 2035. Available online at: https://www.pwc.com/my/en/media/press-releases/2025/20250429-ai-adoption-could-boost-global-GDP.html (accessed July 8, 2025)

Google Scholar

Raosoft (2004) Raosoft Sample Size Calculator. Raosoft, Inc., Seattle. Avilable online at: http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html

Google Scholar

Ross, P., and Maynard, K. (2021). Towards a 4th industrial revolution. Intell. Build. Int. 13, 159–161. doi: 10.1080/17508975.2021.1873625

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Sebastião, S. P., Zulato, G., and Santos, T. B. (2017). Public relations practitioners’ attitudes towards the ethical use of social media in Portuguese speaking countries. Public Relat. Rev. 43, 537–546. doi: 10.1016/J.PUBREV.2017.03.012

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Shahbazi, M., and Bunker, D. (2024). Social media trust: fighting misinformation in the time of crisis. Int. J. Inf. Manag. 77:102780. doi: 10.1016/J.IJINFOMGT.2024.102780

PubMed Abstract | Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Toledano, M., and Avidar, R. (2016). Public relations, ethics, and social media: a cross-national study of PR practitioners. Public Relat. Rev. 42, 161–169. doi: 10.1016/J.PUBREV.2015.11.012

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, G. B., and Davis, F. D. (2003). User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27, 425–478. doi: 10.2307/30036540

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Verma, S., and Garg, N. (2024). The trend and future of techno-ethics: a bibliometric analysis of three decades. Libr. Hi Tech 42, 1579–1600. doi: 10.1108/LHT-10-2022-0477/FULL/XML

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Volaric, T., Tomic, Z., and Ljubic, H. (2024). Artificial intelligence tools for public relations practitioners: an overview. INES 2024—28th IEEE international conference on intelligent engineering systems 2024, proceedings, 31–36.

Google Scholar

Wang, Y., Cheng, Y., and Sun, J. (2021). When public relations meets social media: a systematic review of social media related public relations research from 2006 to 2020. Public Relat. Rev. 47:102081. doi: 10.1016/J.PUBREV.2021.102081

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Whittlestone, J., Nyrup, R., Alexandrova, A., Dihal, K., and Cave, S. (2019). Ethical and societal implications of algorithms, data, and artificial intelligence: a roadmap for research B. London Available online at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337565648_Ethical_and_societal_implications_of_algorithms_data_and_artificial_intelligence_a_roadmap_for_research (accessed October 10, 2025)

Google Scholar

Yamane, T. (1967). Statistics: an introductory analysis. 2nd Edn. New York: Harper and Row.

Google Scholar

Yedalla, N. J. (2025). Fortifying IoT security: the transformative role of AI in cyber threat mitigation. World J. Adv. Eng. Technol. Sci. 14, 49–57. doi: 10.30574/wjaets.2025.14.2.0056

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Yue, C. A., Men, L. R., Davis, D. Z., Mitson, R., Zhou, A., and Al Rawi, A. (2024). Public relations meets artificial intelligence: assessing utilization and outcomes. J. Public Relat. Res. 36, 513–534. doi: 10.1080/1062726X.2024.2400622

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar

Zhao, W., Rachwalski, A., Berndt-Goke, M., and Jin, Y. (2025). An examination of management of AI-triggered organisational threats from communication practitioners’ perspective. J. Contingencies Crisis Manag. 33:e70031. doi: 10.1111/1468-5973.70031

Crossref Full Text | Google Scholar