Corporate Crisis Communication: Examining the Interplay of Reputation and Crisis Response Strategies
Authors:
- 25 June 2015
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Taylor & Francis in Mass Communication and Society
- Vol. 19 (2) , 127-148
Abstract
This experiment study used a 2 × 3 between-subjects design to assess two factors in crisis communication and reputation management—prior corporate reputation (good and bad) and crisis response strategies (apology, sympathy, and compensation)—on an organization facing high crisis responsibility. Results indicate that stakeholders prefer apology to compensation response strategies. Organizations with a prior good reputation have better postcrisis reviews that those with a prior bad reputation. Crisis managers facing crises that generate high attribution of crisis responsibility and anger are advised to rely on apology rather than compensation strategy. It would also be advantageous for an organization with prior good reputation to highlight its past achievements when responding to a crisis.Keywords
This publication has 28 references indexed in Scilit:
- How Important Is an Apology to You?Psychological Science, 2010
- Pursuing Evidence‐Based Crisis Communication2010
- The negative communication dynamicJournal of Communication Management, 2007
- Protecting Organization Reputations During a Crisis: The Development and Application of Situational Crisis Communication TheoryCorporate Reputation Review, 2007
- Companies Can Apologize: Corporate Apologies and Legal LiabilityBusiness Communication Quarterly, 2003
- Consumers' Responses to Negative Word-of-Mouth Communication: An Attribution Theory PerspectiveJournal of Consumer Psychology, 2001
- Liability Means Never being Able to Say You're SorryManagement Communication Quarterly, 1997
- The Reputational LandscapeCorporate Reputation Review, 1997
- Appropriateness and effectiveness of image repair strategiesCommunication Reports, 1997
- Reputation and corporate strategy: A review of recent theory and applicationsStrategic Management Journal, 1988