This study investigated the responses of consumers to information about an organizational crisis. Three hundred and eighty-five individuals from Hong Kong responded to hypothetical scenarios describing a plane crash. The scenarios manipulated causal attribution (internal and external), the organizations’ crisis response (shifting the blame, minimization, no comment, apology, compensation, and corrective action), and crisis severity (severe and extremely severe). Results showed significant main effects of causal attribution and crisis response on (a) judgment of organizational responsibility for the crisis, (b) impression of the organization, (c) sympathy toward the organization, and (d) trust in the organization. However, no significant effects of crisis severity were found. Crisis response affected participants’ judgment of organizational responsibility, and the “no comment” crisis response fostered more trust in the organization than did the minimization crisis response. Implications of the findings for attribution theory and cross-cultural research on crisis communication are discussed.
Allen, M. W., & Caillouet, R. H. (1994). Legitimate endeavors: Impression management strategies used by an organization in crisis. Communication Monographs, 61, 44-62.
2.
Benoit, W. L. (1995). Accounts, excuses, and apologies: A theory of image restoration. Albany: State University of New York Press.
3.
Bond, M. (1991). Beyond the Chinese face: Insights from psychology. Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China: Oxford University Press (China) Ltd.
4.
Borkin, A., & Reinhart, S. (1978). Excuse me and I’m sorry. TESOL Quarterly, 12, 157-176.
5.
Boyd, J. (2000). Actional legitimation: No crisis necessary. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12, 341-353.
6.
Coombs, W. T. (1995). Choosing the right words: The development of guidelines for the selection of the “appropriate” crisis response strategies. Management Communication Quarterly, 8, 447-476.
7.
Coombs, W. T. (1998). An analytic framework for crisis situations: Better responses from a better understanding of the situation. Journal of Public Relations Research, 10, 177-191.
8.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (1996). Communication and attributions in a crisis: An experimental study in crisis communication. Journal of Public Relations Research, 8, 279-295.
9.
Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2001). An extended examination of the crisis situations: A fusion of the relational management and symbolic approaches. Journal of Public Relations Research, 13, 321-340.
10.
Coombs, W. T., & Schmidt, L. (2000). An empirical analysis of image restoration: Texaco’s racism crisis. Journal of Public Relations Research, 12, 163-178.
11.
Davis, D., & Holtgraves, T. (1984). Perceptions of unresponsive others: Attributions, attraction, understandability, and memory of their utterance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 383-408.
12.
Fincham, F. D., & Jaspars, J. M. (1980). Attribution of responsibility: From man the scientist to man as lawyer. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 81-138). New York: Academic Press.
13.
Griffin, M., Babin, B. J., & Attaway, J. S. (1991). An empirical investigation of the impact of negative public publicity on consumer attitudes and intentions. In R. H. Holman & M. R. Soloman (Eds.), Advances in consumer research (Vol. 18, pp. 334-341). Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
14.
Hearit, K. M. (1994). Apologies and public relations crises at Chrysler, Toshiba, and Volvo. Public Relations Review, 20, 113-125.
15.
Jaspars, J., Fincham, F. D., & Hewstone, M. (Eds.). (1983). Attribution theory and research: Conceptual, developmental and social dimensions. London: Academic Press.
16.
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). From acts to dispositions: The attribution process in person perception. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol.2, pp. 219-266). New York: Academic Press.
17.
Lee, B. K. (2000). Audience evaluation process in organizational crisis: A study of consumers in Hong Kong. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong.
18.
McLaughlin, M. L., Cody, M. J., & O’Hair, H. D. (1983). The management of failure events: Some contextual determinants of accounting behavior. Human Communication Research, 9, 208-224.
19.
McLaughlin, M. L., Cody, M. J., & Read, S. J. (1992). Explaining one’s self to others: Reason-giving in a social context. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
McLeod, J. M. (2000, April). Trends in audience research in the United States. Paper presented at the meeting of the International Conference of Chinese Audiences Across Time and Space, City University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, People’s Republic of China.
21.
Ohbuchi, K., Kameda, M., & Agarie, N. (1989). Apology as aggression control: Its role in mediating appraisal of and responds to harm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 219-227.
22.
Olshtain, E., & Cohen, A. D. (1983). Apology: A speech act set. In N. Wolfson & E. Judd (Eds.), Sociolinguistics and second language acquisition (pp. 18-35). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
23.
Quattrone, G. A. (1982). Overattribution and unit formation: When behavior engulfs the person. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 593-607.
24.
Seeger, M. W., Sellnow, T. L., & Ulmer, R. R. (2001). Communication, organization, and crisis. In M. E. Roloff (Ed.), Communication yearbook 21 (pp. 231-276). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
25.
Vasquez, G. M. (1993). A homo narrans paradigm for public relations: Combining Bormann’s symbolic convergence theory and Grunig’s situational theory of publics. Journal of Public Relations Research, 5(3), 201-216.
26.
Vasquez, G. M. (1994). Testing a communication theory-method-messagebehavior complex for the investigation of publics. Journal of Public Relations Research, 6, 291-316.
27.
Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.
28.
Weiner, B., Amirkan, J., Folkes, V. S., & Verette, J. A. (1987). An attribution analysis of excuse giving: Studies of a naïve theory of emotion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 316-324.
29.
Weiner, B., Graham, S., Peter, O., & Zmuidinas, M. (1991). Public confession and forgiveness. Journal of Personality, 59, 281-312.
